Proof of Evidence of Dr Stephanie Wray...

Inquiries 4

Proof of Evidence of Dr Stephanie Wray

Ecology

NR54

The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order PoE Stephanie Wray (NR54)

i

[Page left intentionally blank]


i

Contents Section Page Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. 3

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Evidence Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2

3 Ecological effects of EWR2 ............................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Terrestrial habitats ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Aquatic habitats and associated species ................................................................................... 12 3.4 Terrestrial invertebrates ............................................................................................................. 17 3.5 White-clawed crayfish ................................................................................................................ 21 3.6 Great crested newts................................................................................................................... 22 3.7 Reptiles ..................................................................................................................................... 26 3.8 Birds, including Barn Owls ......................................................................................................... 29 3.9 Hazel Dormice ........................................................................................................................... 35 3.10 Water vole ................................................................................................................................. 38 3.11 Otter .......................................................................................................................................... 41 3.12 Bats ........................................................................................................................................... 44 3.13 Badgers ..................................................................................................................................... 49 3.14 Ecological Compensation Package ............................................................................................ 52 3.15 Biodiversity accounting and approach to net gain ...................................................................... 59

4 Responses to Objectors .............................................................................................................. 66 4.1 Ecological Objectors .................................................................................................................. 66

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 99

6 Declarations ............................................................................................................................. 100

Appendices Appendix A – Register of ecological mitigation commitments Appendix B – Biodiversity accounting


1

List of acronyms and abbreviations Abbreviation Definition

ARS Active Roost Site (barn owl)

AWI Ancient Woodland Inventory

AWIS Ancient Woodland Indicator Species

BBM Bletchley to Bedford Midland Branch (Engineering Line Reference)

BCC Buckinghamshire County Council

BCT Bat Conservation Trust

BFO Bletchley Flyover (Engineering Line Reference)

BNS Biological Notification Site

BOA Biodiversity Opportunity Area

BRC Biological Records Centre

CEcol Chartered Ecologist

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CEnv Chartered Environmentalist

CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

CoCP Code of Construction Practice

CWS County Wildlife Site

EA Environment Agency

ECoW Ecological Clerk of Works

ECS Ecological Compensation Site

eDNA Environmental DNA

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Ecological Management Plan

ES Environmental Statement

EWR East West Rail

EWR2 East West Rail Phase 2

EZol Ecological Zone of Influence

GCN Great crested newt

HPI Habitat of Principal Importance

HS2 High Speed Two

HSI Habitat Suitability Index

IEF Important Ecological Feature

LNR Local Nature Reserve

LWS Local Wildlife Site


2

Abbreviation Definition

MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside

NE Natural England

NERC The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

NR Network Rail

NRBC Networks Rail’s Biodiversity Calculator

NRMI Network Rail Managed Infrastructure

NVC National Vegetation Classification

OBS Occupied Breeding Site

OXD Oxford Branch (Engineering Line Reference)

PBRA Potential Bat Roost Assessment

PMW Precautionary Method of Working

PRF Potential Roost Features (bats)

PSYM Predictive System for MultiMetrics

RCS River Corridor Survey

RHS River Habitat Survey

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

Ssp Species

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SuDS Sustainable Drainage System

TWAO Transport and Works Act Order

WCA The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

WCS BIA Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Biodiversity Impact Assessment


3

Glossary Term Definition

Ancient Woodland An area that has been continuously wooded since 1600AD. Includes ancient semi-natural woodland and plantations on ancient woodland sites

Ancient Woodland Indicator Species

Plant species which indicate that woodland has been in existence on any one site since at least 1600 AD. The number of AWI that occur in a site increases the likelihood that the woodland is ancient

Baseline The conditions that exist without a development at the time an assessment or survey is undertaken

BBM Line Bletchley to Bedford Midland Branch (Engineering Line Reference). Railway within EWR2 between Bletchley and Bedford (Figure 2.1, Volume 4)

BFO Line Bletchley Flyover (Engineering Line Reference). Railway within EWR2 entering Bletchley from the west via a viaduct (Figure 2.1, Volume 4)

Biodiversity The diversity of different types of life found on Earth. ‘Biodiversity’ usually refers to a measure of the variety of organisms present in different ecosystems. It can refer to genetic variation, ecosystem variation, or species variation (number of species) within an area, biome, or the planet

Code of Construction Practice

The document that outlines how EWR2 will avoid, reduce or mitigate construction effects on the environment (Appendix 2.1, Volume 3). It provides the framework of requirements for the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Construction Environmental Management Plan

The document through which EWR2 will manage environmental impacts during construction. The requirements for which are defined in the Code of Construction Practice

Construction or Construction phase

The period when construction of EWR2 takes place

County Wildlife Sites Are considered to be of value for wildlife in a county context. They have no statutory protection but are given some protection through the planning system by counties advising planning authorities on their importance

Culvert A structure that allows water to flow under the railway from one side to the other

Cutting Where material (generally soil or rock) is removed to make way for the railway below the surrounding ground level to avoid a change in level of the railway itself. A cutting is open at the top, thereby differentiating it from a tunnel. Can be considered opposite to an embankment

DHF Line Denbigh Hall Flyover (Engineering Line Reference). Railway within EWR2 to the north of Bletchley station (Figure 2.1, Volume 4)

Ecological Compensation Site

An area within the Scheme Boundary which has been designed to provide habitat for translocation of protected species and to support the recovery of species populations potentially affected by EWR2


4

Term Definition

Effects An effect is the consequence of an impact to a receptor or resource. This is assessed by evaluating the sensitivity of the receptor or resource in the context of the nature and magnitude of the impact experienced by the receptor or resource

Embankment Where the railway is raised up on a bank (generally soil or rock based) in relation to the surrounding ground level to avoid a change in level of the railway itself. Can be considered opposite to a cutting

Environmental design Measures proposed as part of EWR2 design that will avoid, reduce or compensate environmental effects. These are illustrated on the Environmental Design Drawings (Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement)

Environmental Design Drawings

These drawings illustrate EWR2’s integrated environmental design and are included in Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement

Environmental Impact Assessment

The process by which the anticipated effects on the environment of a proposed development or project are measured

Environmental Statement The report setting out the process and findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

EWR The name used for the proposed reinstated railway between Oxford and East Anglia, the proposed development of which is known as East West Rail

EWR Alliance Collaborative partnership of project owner participant Network Rail along with three delivery partners: Atkins, Laing O’Rourke and VolkerRail to build EWR2

EWR Phase 2 or EWR2 The second phase of the western section of EWR. Includes all elements of the Order Scheme, plus the operational railway between Bicester, Bedford, Bletchley and Aylesbury on which EWR2 train services operate, up to the points at which they join the main existing rail network

Habitat A place where an organism (e.g. human, animal, plant, micro-organism) or population of organisms live, characterised by its surroundings

Habitat of Principal Importance

These habitats of principal importance in England are published in a list by the Secretary of State under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, 2006, Section 41

HS2 Phase One of High Speed Two which is authorised under the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017.

HS2 Interface Area One of the Route Sections, where the works are authorised under the HS2 Act. Further details are provided in Chapter 2, Volume 2i

Impacts An impact is a physical or measurable change to a receptor or resource that is attributable to the construction and/or operation of EWR2, when compared to baseline conditions

Important Ecological Feature

The Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) define an important ecological feature as one with sufficient nature conservation importance to warrant a detailed assessment in an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on plants, fungi and animals that have been globally evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria,


5

Term Definition designed to determine relative risk of extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable)

Level crossing A place where a railway and a highway or right of way cross at the same level

Local Nature Reserve Statutory designations with wildlife or geological features that are of interest locally under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949 (amended by schedule 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006)

Local Wildlife Site Wildlife rich site selected for local nature conservation interest or value. A non-statutory designation, defined in local and structure plans under the Town and Country Planning system which may be a material consideration in planning

Main River A main river is a statutory watercourse which has been designated by Defra. They typically include larger streams and rivers

Maintenance Maintenance can comprise inspections, repair, adjustments or alterations, removal, refurbishments, reconstruction, replacements and improvements

MCJ Marylebone to Claydon L& NE Junction (Engineering Line Reference). Railway within EWR2 between Calvert Junction and Aylesbury (Figure 2.1, Volume 4)

Mitigation Measures identified to reduce potential environmental impacts and effects arising from the construction or operation of EWR2

Mitigation hierarchy The mitigation hierarchy sets out the order in which mitigation actions should be considered, from most desirable to least desirable, to address likely effects identified during an EIA. Avoid, minimise or reduce and restore or compensate

Mothballed line Section of OXD Line between Claydon and Bletchley which is not currently open to traffic

National Vegetation Classification Areas

Distinct areas of land screened in for NVC survey

Non-statutory designated site

Nature conservation sites with local policy protection (e.g. LWS, SNCI)

Operation or Operational phase

The period when EWR2 is in operation. Day to day functioning of EWR2 post construction

Ordinary Watercourse Any watercourse not designated as a ‘main river’

Ordnance Survey National mapping agency for Great Britain

Overbridge A bridge crossing over the railway

OXD Line Oxford Branch (Engineering Line Reference). Railway within EWR2 Area between Bicester and Bletchley (Figure 2.1, Volume 4)

Phase 1 Habitat Survey Standard technique for environmental audit based on habitat type

Priority Habitat Semi-natural habitat identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP)

Public Right of Way Paths on which the public have legally protected rights to pass


6

Term Definition

Rail Linear steel support for train wheels. Two rails secured to sleepers make up the track

Railway General term referring to the rail transport system as whole and the corridor in which it sits

Receptor An identified aspect of the environment - e.g. a resident, protected species, heritage asset, controlled water - that may be affected by emissions during demolition, construction or operation. Human receptors include locations where people spend time and where property may be impacted. Ecological receptors are habitats that might be sensitive to changes in air quality

Red List Red list of Birds of Conservation Concern

Risk The likelihood of an adverse event occurring

Route Section For reporting purposes, EWR2 has been split into six Route Sections based on geography, operation and construction programme and methods. The Route Sections are 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and the HS2 Interface Area. These are shown on Figure 2.1, Volume 4

Scheme Area The footprint of the Scheme includes the physical extent of the permanent works, together with land required temporarily to construct the permanent works; this footprint is referred to as the Scheme Area

Scheme Boundary The Scheme Boundary delineates the Scheme Area

Semi-improved grassland Semi-improved grassland is not a formal HPI type but this is the name used in the NE data GIS set which was mainly compiled from desk study sources. The level of confidence attributed to areas of mapped semi-improved grasslands is considered by NE to be ‘low’ meaning that many may not be of HPI quality

Significant effects The term 'significant effect' has a specific meaning in EIA regulations. The opposite is an insignificant effect. Professional judgement is necessary to determine whether an effect is significant based on the evidence presented. Where the technical chapters identify significant adverse effects due to construction and/or operation of EWR2, mitigation measures are proposed to avoid, reduce or compensate for these effects

Site compound Working areas for individual structures such as highway bridges or footbridges

Site of Special Scientific Interest

A geological or biological conservation designation denoting a protected area in the UK

Stakeholders Stakeholders include persons or groups who are directly or indirectly affected by a project and/or an offset, as well as those who are interested in a project and/or offset and have the ability to influence its outcome, for good or bad. They include persons or groups who hold rights over land and resources in the area of EWR2 and offset. Stakeholders can include, but are not limited to, indigenous peoples, local communities, non-governmental organisations and members of scientific bodies such as university departments and research institutes, local and central government, customers, shareholders, management, employees and suppliers

Statutory designated site Nature conservation sites with legal protection (includes Ramsar


7

Term Definition sites, SPA, SAC, SSSI)

Study area The identified spatial scope over which an assessment has been undertaken. The study area is topic specific and varies by technical chapter

Surface Water Water situated above ground level e.g. within rivers, ponds and lakes

the Order The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order

The Order Scheme The works, compulsory purchase and temporary possession authorised under the Order and associated permitted development rights

Track Rail system consisting of two rails, secured on sleepers, on which trains run

Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO)

The mechanism by which authorisation is given for the construction and operation of certain transport systems, such as railways. An order gives the promoter the necessary powers to put such a scheme into practice

Underbridge A bridge crossing under the railway

Water Framework Directive

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

Zone of Influence The areas/resources that may be affected by the biophysical changes caused by activities associated with EWR2


1

1 Introduction 1.1.1 My name is Stephanie Wray. I am a Director of Biocensus, a specialist ecological consultancy. I have

been retained by the East West Rail Alliance on behalf of Network Rail to provide specialist advice on ecological matters pertaining to the East West Rail Scheme. I have over 25 years’ experience in the assessment of ecological impacts and the design of mitigation for major infrastructure projects, including railways and other linear infrastructure.

1.1.2 I am a Fellow, and a past President, of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, a Chartered Ecologist and a Chartered Environmentalist. I hold a PhD in mammal ecology, and am a member of Natural England’s Expert Panel on Bats. Throughout my career in consultancy I have continued to undertake applied research and, in 2011, I was awarded the Mammal Society Medal for my work on the effectiveness of mitigation for mammals affected by development projects.

1.1.3 My involvement in EWR2 began in 2017 when I was commissioned by the East West Rail Alliance to review the ecology elements of the draft The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order Environmental Statement (NR 16). I subsequently advised on the requirements for further ecological surveys during 2018, and reviewed the outputs of those surveys. I acted as a technical adviser and reviewer for the production of The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order Further Environmental Information (NR47) produced in November 2018. Since the Environmental Statement was submitted, I have reviewed and responded to the representations by various stakeholders. As the technical reviewer for EWR2 I have a good understanding of all the ecological work that has been carried out and I have made comprehensive site visits to EWR2 and its setting.

1.1.4 I will provide evidence on all ecological matters, including:

a) A summary of ecological survey work, potential impacts and effects of EWR2 on ecological features, the mitigation proposed and any residual effects anticipated. These are summarised from the various ecological reports that have been produced by the Alliance in relation to EWR2 and are presented in Section 3 of my evidence.

b) The losses or gains of biodiversity as a result of EWR2 and the approach to Net Gain. This has been raised by a number of objectors to EWR2 and I set out Network Rail’s position on the topic, and the biodiversity accounting metrics. These are presented in Section 3.15 and Appendix B of my evidence.

c) Responses to statutory consultees and other stakeholders on ecological matters. These are set out in Section 4 of my evidence.

d) In section 5, I draw conclusions as to the significance of the main residual effects and the implications for consenting EWR2.

e) In the Appendices to my evidence, I provide a register of the ecological mitigation commitments made in the Environmental Statement and further information on the assessment of habitat losses and gains.


2

2 Evidence Summary 2.1.1 In my evidence I deal with all matters relating to ecology, biodiversity and nature conservation for the

EWR2 Order Scheme.

2.1.2 A comprehensive suite of ecological surveys was carried out throughout the Ecological Zone of Influence for the Scheme. These included surveys of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, aquatic invertebrates including white-clawed crayfish, terrestrial invertebrates including several notable species of butterfly, fish, great crested newts, reptiles including adder, birds including barn owl, badgers, bats, otters, water vole and hazel dormice. Surveys were still ongoing at the time the Environmental Statement The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order Environmental Statement (NR16), that I will refer to as the ES, was published in July 2018. Further survey results were then published in November 2018 in the Further Environmental Information report The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order Further Environmental Information in Support of the ES (NR47), Part I Main Report, which I will refer to as the FEI. The FEI updated our assessment of impacts based on the further survey work and in my opinion the two documents set out a comprehensive and conservative assessment of the impacts of the Scheme. The results are summarised in Section 3 of my evidence.

2.1.3 The EWR2 Order Scheme would have no impacts on sites of European importance for nature conservation, such as SAC, SPA or Ramsar sites.

2.1.4 One site of National importance, Sheephouse Wood SSSI, an ancient woodland, would experience a local shading effect due to the need to extend a structure intended to help bats cross the HS2 lines across the EWR line. This would not affect the integrity of the SSSI. No ancient woodland would be lost as a result of the scheme. About 20 veteran trees are at risk, but these will be retained within the boundaries of the Scheme wherever it is possible to do so.

2.1.5 Two Local Wildlife Sites, Railway Bank and Waddeston Station Complex, fall within the Scheme boundary and would be lost as a result of the construction. The loss of these sites, and the loss of other habitats of conservation value along the Scheme would be compensated for by the creation of a series of Ecological Compensation Sites along the Scheme. These are described in Section 3.14 of my evidence. These sites, together with the replacement planting along the completed Scheme will deliver significant gains of certain habitat types including species-rich hedgerows and ponds.

2.1.6 Several notable species of invertebrates were recorded, both terrestrial and aquatic, including five Nationally notable species. Invertebrate populations were identified as being of County importance. At least twice as many ponds will be created as would be lost, and there would be a significant net gain in habitat for aquatic invertebrates. Planting in the ECS will be tailored to support notable species of terrestrial invertebrate by providing their larval food plants.

2.1.7 Some protected species which were assumed to be present in the ES (NR16) were found to be absent from the Scheme during surveys in 2018. No white-clawed crayfish were recorded, no water vole were recorded and no hazel dormice were recorded. Precautionary measures would still be put in place in case these species should colonise the Scheme in future.

2.1.8 Surveys of great crested newts identified 3 ponds with a small population of great crested newt, 78 ponds with a medium population and 2 with a large population. These results indicate that there are good populations of great crested newt along the length of the Scheme and a further 263 ponds up to 500m from the Scheme area are assumed to support the species. Ponds will be protected wherever possible, but where ponds are unavoidably lost, they would be replaced at a ratio of two for every one lost. Terrestrial habitat for great crested newts, including hibernacula, would also be provided within ECS, and the landscape planting along the railway would, in time, become a valuable habitat for newts.

2.1.9 Common reptile species were recorded from the Scheme footprint, but no adders were recorded during surveys in 2018. Adders are rare in the County and there were historic records. Care will be taken to avoid accidental mortality or injury to reptiles during construction, and reptile habitat, including opportunities for basking and hibernation will be included within ECS. The line-side habitat will after construction is completed, also provide opportunities for reptiles.

2.1.10 The desk study and field surveys identified a breeding and wintering bird assemblage typical of lowland farmland, woodland, scrub and wetland habitats. There will be a temporary loss of nesting habitat for birds due to vegetation clearance to allow construction. This will be replaced with new woodland, scrub and hedgerow planting and will over time provide a net gain in habitat.

2.1.11 Birds, particularly barn owls, may be at risk of mortality through collisions with trains. The landscape planting design at potential blackspots would encourage barn owls to fly over the line at a safe height.


3

Habitat enhancement for barn owls, through the provision of nesting boxes would be provided at a distance from the railway in order to compensate for any residual impact on local barn owl populations.

2.1.12 Signs of otter were recorded on all catchments close to the Scheme and otter are assumed to be present throughout. Two holts / resting sites have been recorded which could be impacted by the Scheme. Both would be replaced with an artificial holt and works affecting the holts undertaken under a Natural England licence. Safe crossing points with associated fencing would be provided at all watercourse crossings to avoid fragmentation of otter habitat or incidental mortality of otters attempting to cross over the track.

2.1.13 Bat surveys were undertaken including roost surveys, activity transects, static detector monitoring, surveys of crossing points, trapping and radio-tracking. An assemblage of 13 bat species was recorded on or close to EWR2: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler’s, serotine, brown long-eared, barbastelle, Natterer’s, Daubenton’s, whiskered, Brandt’s and Bechstein’s bats. The majority of these species are present throughout EWR2.

2.1.14 There are 15 known moderate or high significance roosts within the Scheme Area and up to 100m from it, two of which would be lost as a result of the Scheme. Further temporary impacts are anticipated on foraging and commuting bats as a result of the vegetation clearance required to facilitate the construction of the Scheme. Mitigation measures are proposed to maintain an east-west corridor for foraging bats at all times during construction. There is a risk of collision-related mortality to bats at a number of crossing hotspots along Route Sections 2A and 2B. The landscape planting in these locations would be designed to encourage bats to cross at a safe height. All works potentially affecting bats would be undertaken under a Natural England licence.

2.1.15 Although badgers were not included as an Important Ecological Feature in the ES (NR16), they were surveyed as they are legally protected for welfare reasons. Route Sections 2A and 2B supported contiguous badger territories, with a small number of setts in other route sections. These badger social groups would be provided with artificial setts in or close to the Scheme boundary where main setts would be lost as a result of the construction works. Works that could potentially disturb badgers would be undertaken under a Natural England licence.

2.1.16 In Section 4 of my evidence I respond to various objections to the EWR2 Order Scheme. These fall into two categories: those that object to ecological impacts; and those that object to land taken for ecological mitigation. In the case of the latter I have set out the reasons for taking individual land parcels for ECS. In the former case, I have responded to specific points, but the majority relate to the availability of survey information, and the provision of a net gain.

2.1.17 Most of the concerns regarding the level of survey undertaken relate to the ES (NR16), which did not include the comprehensive surveys undertaken in 2018 and presented in the FEI (NR47). I consider that the FEI should address most of these concerns.

2.1.18 With regard to net gain, Network rail’s position is set out within Paragraphs 10.9.5-10.9.9 of its Statement of Case, and is that the focus of the principles that planning authorities should apply is upon the avoidance of significant harm to biodiversity by a development and the Order Scheme has been prepared with that principle in mind. Given that it is not possible to acquire land through powers of compulsory purchase for the sole purpose of achieving a net gain in biodiversity, the Order Scheme is not able to acquire additional land that would allow the delivery of net gain in biodiversity units. In my evidence I provide more detail on the biodiversity accounting and illustrate the losses and gains of habitat in each Route Section. Although we are not able to demonstrate a net gain using a biodiversity accounting metric, EWR2 will deliver net gains of some habitats such as hedgerows and ponds.

2.1.19 In my professional opinion, sufficient survey information has been collected to ensure that the impacts of the EWR2 Scheme have been understood and appropriate mitigation and compensation designed. I consider that, if the mitigation measures set out in the ES (NR16) and my evidence are implemented in full, then the Scheme would fulfil its legal obligations regarding ecological issues. If Network Rail is able to secure agreement from landowners for further compensatory habitat creation, then opportunities exist to deliver biodiversity net gain.


4

3 Ecological effects of EWR2 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 In this section of my evidence, I set out information relating to the main important ecological features (IEF)

which have the potential to be affected by EWR2. Whilst not considered and IEF, updated information regarding badgers is included due to their legal protection. This section summarises the results of the Environmental Statement The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order Environmental Statement, which I will refer to as the ES and the Further Environmental Information report The Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order Further Environmental Information in Support of the ES, Part I Main Report, which I will refer to as the FEI (NR47). The FEI was produced in November 2018 to present the results of further ecological surveys alongside the original survey data and to update the assessments made and mitigation proposed in the ES (NR16), and must be read in conjunction with the ES (NR16).

3.1.2 EWR2 has been the subject of a comprehensive suite of ecological surveys to identify the main IEF that have the potential to be affected by EWR2. When the ES (NR16) was submitted in July 2018 these surveys were still incomplete and further ecological surveys were carried out throughout the 2018 survey season. These are set out in Table 1.1 below.

Table 3.1: Field surveys

Ecological feature

Survey type/method Dates of surveys provided in ES

Dates of surveys provided in FEI

Designated sites, terrestrial habitats and flora

Phase 1 habitat survey 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 (January – May)

May – October 2018

Phase 2 botanical survey - including National Vegetation Classification (NVC)

August – September 2015; May – July 2016

May – June 2018

Hedgerows July 2015; September 2015; July 2016; September 2016

No additional surveys

Watercourses (main rivers and ordinary watercourses)

River Habitat Survey (RHS) and River Corridor Survey (RCS)

September 2015; October 2015; June 2016 and September 2017


Aquatic invertebrates

Kick sampling, species level identification and actual abundance

May 2015; August 2015; June 2016; July 2016; September 2015; October 2015; September 2016 and September 2017


Aquatic macrophytes

Reach survey (100 m) species level identification and percentage cover value

September 2017 No additional surveys

Fish Catch depletion electric fishing survey, species identification and actual abundance

September 2015; September 2016 and September 2017



5

Ecological feature



PSYM pond surveys

Predictive SYstem for Multimetrics pond surveys in Route Section 2A, Route Section 2B, Route Section 2D and Route Section 2E. Method includes physical habitat survey, macrophyte (species level identification, presence) and aquatic invertebrate (species level identification and actual abundance)

No surveys completed

June 2018

Otter Presence/likely absence survey June to September 2017

May – September 2018

Water vole Presence/likely absence survey June to September 2017


White-clawed crayfish

Habitat suitability assessment 2016 and 2017 May - October 2018

Presence/likely absence surveys (multiple methods)

2016

Badger Presence/ absence and baitmarking

Presence/absence only: 2015; 2016; 2017

January – May 2018

Bats

Potential bat roosting assessment (PBRA)

2015; 2017 February – August 2018

Aerial tree-climbing surveys 2015; 2017 February – September 2018

Roost surveys (emergence/re-entry)

2015; 2017 May – September 2018

Crossing-point surveys No surveys completed

May – October 2018

Activity transects 2015; April 2018 April – September 2018

Static surveys 2015; April 2018 April – August 2018

Trapping and radio-tracking surveys



Hibernation survey January to February 2018

No further surveys

Hazel dormouse Presence/likely absence survey using nest tubes


April – September 2018

Great crested newt

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment

2016, 2017 and 2018

March – June 2018

Presence/ likely absence surveys

Population size class assessment (where appropriate)

Reptiles Presence/ likely absence surveys 2013; 2014; 2015; 2018 (prior to May)

No further surveys


6

Ecological feature



Additional surveys for adders in Route Section 2B

- May – September 2018

Birds

Breeding Bird surveys No surveys completed

April – July 2018

Barn owl Stage 1, 2 and 3 assessments 2016 - 2017 May – September 2018

Terrestrial invertebrates

Entomology surveys May- September 2015; May- September 2016

June – September 2018

Black hairstreak surveys

3.1.3 As for all major infrastructure schemes it was not possible to gain access to all land outside of Network

Rail’s ownership within which ecological surveys were proposed for the ecological features listed above in Table 1. Some areas of operational railway line within Network Rail’s ownership could not be accessed for survey for safety and operational reasons. Surveys were attempted wherever access was permitted, unless access to a particular area was granted late in the ecological survey season which meant robust surveys could not be completed in the time available. In each of the following sections of my evidence any particular gaps in survey coverage are highlighted where, for example, access was not granted for every visit that was programmed to a site.

3.1.4 The majority of all sites potentially affected by EWR2 have been surveyed and in my professional opinion the overall level of survey coverage is sufficient to make an accurate assessment of impacts.


7

3.2 Terrestrial habitats 3.2.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for terrestrial habitats are provided in Appendix 9.1 v2 (in

Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

3.2.2 Surveys undertaken for terrestrial habitats comprised:

a) A desk study records search for internationally designated sites extending 10km from the Scheme Area and for statutory and non-statutory designated sites extending 2km from the Scheme Area (undertaken in December 2017);

b) A desk study records search for notable terrestrial habitats and flora extending 500m from the Scheme Area (undertaken in December 2017);

c) A review of the First Edition Ordnance Survey maps, dating from between 1888 and 1913, to identify any potential woodlands with ancient characteristics that are not included within Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) within or adjacent to the Scheme;

d) A detailed assessment of habitats based on available aerial imagery where field surveys were not completed prior to submission of the ES (NR16);

e) A Heritage Study in 2018 to confirm the status of potential woodlands with ancient characteristics not included on the Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI);

f) Phase 1 habitat surveys (undertaken in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018);

g) Phase 2 botanical survey including National Vegetation Classification (NVC) (undertaken August – September 2015, May – July 2016, May - June 2018);

h) Hedgerow surveys (undertaken July 2015, September 2015, July 2016, September 2016)

Limitations to surveys undertaken

Desk study 3.2.3 Biological data comes with limitations as the absence of records does not mean a species is not present

and likewise the presence of a record, particularly those over ten years old, is no guarantee the species is still present. In addition, the amount and quality of biological records derived from searches through Biological Records Centres (BRC) varies in quantity and quality for several reasons, including:

a) Recorder bias;

b) Incomplete data;

c) Data availability lag;

d) Changes in data due to the verification process.

Field surveys 3.2.4 Ecological surveys are limited by seasonal factors which affect the presence of plants. A complete list of

plants has therefore not been provided and the absence of evidence of any species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is not present or that it will not be present in the future. Several botanical surveys undertaken prior to 2018 were not undertaken at the optimum time or were not complete; however, this has been rectified by carrying out surveys during the appropriate time of year during 2018.

3.2.5 The list of invasive plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is extensive and these plants are found in a range of different habitats. Habitat surveys generally checked for the presence of Japanese knotweed, giant knotweed, hybrid knotweed, giant hogweed, Himalayan balsam, rhododendron and cotoneaster species. Other invasive species may not have been recorded, but it was considered that sufficient information had been gathered to identify any constraints posed by invasive species. I do not consider that these issues have any impact on the completeness of the ES (NR16).


8

Gaps in data and coverage 3.2.6 Where habitats within the Scheme Area were not subject to field survey in 2015 and 2016 due to lack of

access, they were subject to assessment from publicly available aerial imagery, the MAGIC website and a review of field survey from surrounding land parcels (where possible) to determine likely main habitats present as accurately as possible.

3.2.7 As a result of the desk study assessment and results of 2015 and 2016 surveys, several sites were identified for further surveys in 2018 along each of the Route Sections. A total of eight sites were surveyed in Route Section 2A; seventeen sites were surveyed in Route Section 2B and three sites were denied access; one site was surveyed in Route Section 2C; three sites were surveyed in Route Section 2D with four sites denied access; and two sites were surveyed in Route Section 2E with access denied to one site. The 2018 surveys consisted of an initial scoping survey and if the site was considered to be of sufficient botanical interest, an NVC survey was then undertaken.

3.2.8 Land access restrictions for field surveys during 2018 meant the following eight site surveys were not completed (see Figure 9.4 in Part III of the FEI (NR47) for site locations):

a) PH2_2B_003 (a disused railway embankment);

b) PH2_2B_010 (a small area of deciduous woodland);

c) PH2_2B_019 (a small area of deciduous woodland);

d) PH2_2D_001 (visual access from adjacent footpath and scoped out);

e) PH2_2D_002 (deciduous woodland);

f) PH2_2D_003 (survey of adjacent areas of similar habitat undertaken, identified notable species spiny restharrow, common spotted orchid and bee orchid);

g) PH2_2D_005A (deciduous woodland);

h) PH2_2E_004 (a small area of deciduous woodland);

3.2.9 Where it was not possible to achieve 100 % survey coverage, the assessment was based on a reasonable precautionary approach (considering existing knowledge, citing supplementary information where deemed relevant and necessary and applying professional judgement).

3.2.10 Four woodlands were assumed in the ES (NR16) on a precautionary basis to be potential woodland of ancient characteristics based on first edition Ordnance Survey maps and aerial assessment. These woodlands were the subject of a heritage review and NVC survey in 2018.

Results 3.2.11 Survey results for terrestrial habitats are provided in Appendix 9.1 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) and

summarised in Chapter 9 (Ecology) of the relevant Volume 2ii Route Section of the ES (NR16) updated where necessary in Part I of the FEI (NR47). No Internationally designated sites, such as SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites, would be affected by the Scheme.

3.2.12 Terrestrial habitats within the existing railway corridor typically comprised rough grassland adjacent to the rail track and ballast with a mosaic of scattered and continuous scrub and woodland along the boundary of the railway. In Route Section 2E the areas of scrub and woodland were typically more mature and covered a greater area than that found in Route Sections 2A, 2C and 2D. Habitats in Route Section 2B (the mothballed section) were typical of a disused railway line. Grassland, bare ground and scattered scrub (open mosaic habitat) were found along the railway track, with dense blocks of scrub and woodland along the boundaries.

3.2.13 Between 2015 and 2016, two sites in Route Section 2A progressed to an NVC survey; seven sites in Route Section 2B progressed to and NVC survey; one site in Route Sections 2C, 2E and HS2 Interface Area progressed to NVC survey; and no sites in Route Section 2D progressed to NVC survey. Of the additional sites surveyed during 2018, one site in Route Section 2A progressed onto an NVC survey; eight sites in Route Section 2B progressed to an NVC survey; no sites in Route Section 2D and HS2 Interface Area; and one site in Route Section 2E progressed to an NVC survey.

3.2.14 Habitats within the Scheme Area but outside of the existing railway typically comprised arable and pasture fields separated by hedgerows.


9

3.2.15 Habitats of Principal Importance1 (HPI) found within the Scheme Area included lowland meadow, lowland mixed deciduous woodland, wood-pasture and parkland, open mosaic habitat (within Route Section 2B only), arable field margins and hedgerows.  

3.2.16 Two ancient woodland blocks are present adjacent to the boundary of EWR2: Sheephouse Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the HS2 Interface Area and Salden Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS) in Route Section 2B. The four woodlands identified as potentially ancient were not confirmed as ancient by the further studies in 2018. Three were confirmed by the heritage review as not ancient. The woodland south of Horwood House could not be confirmed as ancient by the heritage review and supported a relatively small number of ancient woodland indicator species. It is considered to be woodland with some ancient characteristics but not an ancient woodland.   

3.2.17 Notable plant species recorded during 2018 surveys included spiny restharrow and wood horsetail in Route Section 2B.

Evaluation 3.2.18 For the purposes of nature conservation evaluation, the ‘terrestrial habitats’ features were assessed as

the following:

a) Designated sites: Sheephouse Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Saldon Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS) both ancient woodland sites valued as being of National importance;

b) Designated sites: Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and a further nine LWS comprised of a variety of habitats, some of which included habitats of principal importance and supported a diverse assemblage of plants and animals (including several rare in the county they fell within) valued as being of County importance;

c) Designated sites: Nine Biological Notification Sites (BNS) that are in the process of being reviewed and assessed against the LWS criteria by the relevant local authority, which were assumed to have County value on a precautionary basis;

d) Designated sites: Two Wildlife Corridors, Woburn to Bletchley Milton Keynes Railway Corridor and Mainline Milton Keynes Railway Corridor. Railway corridors were given the same status as Milton Keynes Wildlife Sites and were valued as being of County importance;

e) Project wide habitat mosaic: The mosaic of habitats extending across the Scheme Area, form an important wildlife corridor through a landscape dominated by arable and dairy farming and through urban areas that cumulatively was valued as being of County importance;

f) Woodland south of Horwood House: As a woodland with ancient characteristics this was initially valued as being of potential National importance. However, following the Heritage Study it was confirmed as being of County importance;

g) Woodland copses: Three sites were initially identified based on a review of historic mapping. However, following the Heritage Study it was confirmed that they were not woodlands of ancient characteristics and were valued as being of County importance;

h) Veteran trees were valued as being of County importance;

i) Native black poplars were valued as being of County importance;

j) Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI): Hedgerows, lowland meadow, lowland mixed deciduous woodland, arable field margins, wood-pasture and parkland and open mosaic habitat were all valued as being of County importance;

k) Other terrestrial habitats were valued as being of Local importance;

l) Spiny restharrow and common twayblade were valued as being of Local importance;

m) Amenity grassland, bare ground and buildings were valued as being of negligible importance.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction 3.2.19 There would be no impacts on European sites and no direct impacts on sites of national importance for

nature conservation.

1 These habitats of principal importance in England are published in a list by the Secretary of State under the Natural Environment and Rural

Communities (NERC) Act, 2006, Section 41


10

3.2.20 Construction works in Route Section 2B will result in the complete loss of Railway Bank by Salden Wood LWS, including 3.8 ha of species-rich calcareous and neutral grassland. Works including construction and upgrade of the existing railway on Route Section 2E will also result in the complete loss of Waddesdon Station Complex LWS and its associated calcareous grassland. Both of these sites are valued as being of County importance. Loss of habitats from all the remaining Designated sites is considered to be temporary as habitats will be reinstated following construction.

3.2.21 There will be no loss of habitat from sites on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The construction of EWR2 is anticipated to result in the direct removal of 2.23 ha of woodland south of Horwood House. This woodland was classified as a woodland of ancient characteristics and valued as being of County importance.

3.2.22 Further terrestrial habitat losses (shown in Table 9.15 of Volume 2i, Chapter 9 (Ecology) the ES (NR16)) will be refined as detailed design of temporary works develops, and habitats will be retained where it is possible to do so.

3.2.23 The unmitigated loss of habitat within the Scheme Area was anticipated to result in the loss of 12 veteran trees and 13 native black poplars within the Scheme Area. In the absence of mitigation these impacts are predicted to have a negative effect significant at up to a County scale.

3.2.24 The potential effects of habitat loss will be managed through the environmental design measures which includes a series of Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS) located along the length of EWR2, and standard best practice measures to be delivered through the implementation of the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). 

3.2.25 Railway Bank by Salden LWS falls within the existing railway, and therefore it is not possible to avoid the site during construction. It was determined that the calcareous grassland turves within the existing track bed will be translocated into ECS B14. In addition, the habitats along the northern and southern embankment lost during the construction phase will be reinstated to neutral grassland to maintain connectivity between the railway corridor and ECS B14.

3.2.26 The majority of Waddesdon Station Complex also falls within the existing railway and so it was determined that the species-rich grassland turves of the site will be translocated into ECS E3. This ECS will also contain translocated grassland turves and associated flora from Waddesdon Common LWS and Sunny Hill Farm Pasture LWS and will also seek to include scrub, woodland and grassland. Following the completion of construction, the habitats along eastern railway embankment will be reinstated to neutral grassland and scrub to maintain connectivity along the railway corridor between ECS E3, Waddesdon Common LWS and Sunny Hill Farm LWS.

3.2.27 Woodland soils, along with stumps and protected and notable ground flora, from the woodland with ancient characteristics, south of Horwood House will be translocated to one or more of the Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS B14, B17, B20 or B23). These ECS are considered the most viable locations for translocation as they either contain lowland mixed deciduous woodland HPI (ECS B17), are immediately adjacent to ancient woodlands (ECS B20), or are adjacent to mixed woodland (ECS B14 or B23). In addition, trees will be planted within the translocated woodland soils to speed up the establishment of woodland.

3.2.28 Further details regarding site design details, translocation methodology and management regimes of the ECS are presented in Appendix 9.13 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

3.2.29 It is not possible to replace veteran trees with new planting; however, planting young trees of similar species to the veteran trees that will be lost will be undertaken within ECS to help compensate for the potential loss of these trees. Where a native black poplar is unavoidably lost within the Scheme Area, two will be planted. The new trees to be planted to compensate for veteran tree and native black poplar loss will be located in the nearest ECS to where the loss occurs. Also, the intact hulks of the veteran trees and native black poplars will be felled and relocated in ECS in close proximity to a nearby veteran tree, woodland or parkland area.

3.2.30 The complete loss of Railway Bank by Salden LWS and Waddesdon Station Complex LWS will result in negative residual effects that are significant at the County scale. 

3.2.31 The unavoidable loss of land within the woodland south of Horwood House (woodland with ancient characteristics)will be minimised as far as possible, and potential loss of a veteran tree will be avoided if feasible. These impacts will be compensated by the translocation of woodland soils and plants, and tree planting. This will include translocation of ancient woodland indicator species. Once the new woodland planting has established, there would not be expected to be any net loss of nature conservation value of woodland HPI. 


11

3.2.32 In the event that the veteran trees and native black poplars cannot be retained, their removal will result in a negative residual effect significant at the County scale. There is no other anticipated permanent residual significant effect to terrestrial habitats.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts – operation 3.2.33 The western boundary of Sheephouse Wood SSSI is immediately adjacent to the Scheme Area.

Environmental design measures to address the potential impacts to bats during the operation of EWR2 include the extension of the HS2 bat mitigation structure over the Marylebone to Claydon L + NE Junction (MCJ) line. Although no direct land take is required to extend the structure over the MCJ line, the eastern wall of the extended structure will be immediately adjacent to Sheephouse Wood SSSI, resulting in a permanent shading effect along the western edge of the wood. The location of the bat mitigation structure is confined by the existing MCJ rail line, HS2 to the west, and Sheephouse Wood to the east and thus the shading impacts to Sheephouse Wood SSSI cannot be avoided. As ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat, it is not considered possible to mitigate for any impacts to Sheephouse Wood. 

3.2.34 The shading effect of the extended structure is likely to be more pronounced during late afternoon and evening as it lies to the west of the woodland edge. Shading effects are anticipated to be more pronounced closer to the ground, with the canopy situated above the structure not being affected. The shading is likely to result in the loss of shade-intolerant plant species from the edge of the woodland, reducing the diversity of species along the edge habitat of the ancient woodland and losing the woodland “edge” habitat.

3.2.35 It is estimated that an area approximately 10 m wide and 885 m long (0.885 ha) will be subject to shading from the bat mitigation structure. Of this 0.885 ha, 0.4 ha was considered unlikely to be ancient woodland due to the historic disturbance associated with earthworks from construction of the MCJ line that opened in 1850, resulting in only 0.485 ha of ancient woodland likely to be subject to a permanent shading effect, approximately 0.8% of the SSSI.  

3.2.36 The shading caused by the bat mitigation structure will not affect the woodland canopy and therefore will not impact upon the habitat requirements of the larval or adult purple hairstreak or the adult black hairstreak butterfly, notable species listed in the citation of the SSSI. Black hairstreak lay eggs on blackthorn which are the food source of the larvae. Survey work demonstrated that along the western edge of the woodland there were very small numbers of blackthorn, considered unlikely to be important to the population of purple hairstreak or black hairstreak and therefore these species would be unaffected by any potential shading.

3.2.37 The habitat requirements of the white admiral (a shade-tolerant species, most active in glades and rides in woodlands) are not considered to be affected by any increased shading due to the presence of the bat mitigation structure.

3.2.38 The operation of EWR2 is expected to result in a residual negative effect significant at a Local scale, on a feature of National importance.

3.2.39 To compensate for the residual impact, lowland mixed deciduous woodland will be planted in ECS B20 to the east of Sheephouse Wood. The woodland will be of diverse structure and species-composition and have a scalloped edge to maximise the area of edge habitat created.


12

3.3 Aquatic habitats and associated species 3.3.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for watercourses and associated aquatic species are

provided in Appendix 9.2 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Surveys undertaken 3.3.2 Surveys undertaken for watercourses, standing water bodies and associated aquatic species comprised:

a) Watercourses (main rivers and ordinary watercourses) identified within 150 m of the Scheme boundary;

b) Standing water bodies (ponds and lakes) identified within 50 m of the Scheme boundary;

c) Background data records (habitats, aquatic species and associated designated sites) collated and reported within 2 km of these watercourses;

d) River Habitat Survey (RHS) and River Corridor Survey (RCS) (undertaken in September 2015, October 2015, June 2016 and September 2017);

e) Aquatic invertebrates: Kick sampling, species level identification and actual abundance (undertaken in May 2015, August 2015, June 2016, July 2016, September 2015, October 2015, September 2016 and September 2017);

f) Aquatic macrophytes: Reach survey (100 m) species level identification and percentage cover value (undertaken in September 2017);

g) Fish: Catch depletion electric fishing survey, species identification and actual abundance (undertaken in September 2015, September 2016 and September 2017);

h) Predictive SYstem for Multimetrics (PSYM) pond surveys in Route Section 2A, Route Section 2B, Route Section 2D and Route Section 2E. Method includes physical habitat survey, macrophyte (species level identification, presence) and aquatic invertebrate (species level identification and actual abundance) (undertaken in June 2018).


Watercourse habitat surveys 3.3.3 All RCS and RHS were completed between June and early October in line with relevant guidance and the

absence of spate events during the survey visits means that there were no temporal constraints to the watercourse and riparian habitat surveys undertaken.

3.3.4 Of the sixteen watercourse habitat surveys (coincident RHS and RCS) required, fourteen were completed either in full, or the majority of the section was available to survey and was completed sufficiently to make an assessment. For the remaining two habitat surveys, a valuation was applied based on professional judgement and the application of suitable proxy data as described in the baseline sections of Appendix 9.2 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Watercourse species surveys 3.3.5 As with the habitat surveys, the aquatic species surveys (aquatic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes and

fish) were constrained by issues of site access. However, 80% of the species surveys identified as being required were completed.

3.3.6 Ideally, watercourse aquatic invertebrate surveys should be undertaken in either the spring (March to May) or autumn (September to November) survey period as recognised by the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) method and for all surveyed sites at least one sample was collected within this window. As such it was considered that the data provided a representative record of the communities at each site.

3.3.7 No constraints or limitations were identified to the surveys for either aquatic macrophytes or fish; therefore, the species recorded are representative of the assemblages present in the watercourses surveyed.


13

Gaps in data and coverage 3.3.8 Of the 87 standing water bodies within the Standing Water Bodies Field Survey Study Area (≤ 50 m from

the Scheme Boundary), sixteen ponds were taken forwarded to assessment, of which fourteen were screened as requiring PSYM pond survey. These surveys were not undertaken for the initial ES submission. All but four of these ponds were either surveyed or screened out of requiring survey during 2018.

3.3.9 Where it has not been possible to achieve 100% survey coverage for watercourse/standing water body habitat and their associated aquatic species assemblages, the assessment was based on a reasonable precautionary approach (considering existing knowledge of the feature, citing supplementary information where deemed relevant and necessary and applying professional judgement).

Results 3.3.10 Survey results for aquatic habitats are provided in Appendix 9.2 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) and

summarised in Chapter 9 (Ecology) of the relevant Volume 2ii Route Section of the ES (NR16) (updated where necessary in Part I of the FEI (NR47)).

Watercourses 3.3.11 Eleven watercourses within the Watercourses Field Survey Study Area (≤150 m from the Scheme

Boundary) were identified as requiring RHS and RCS. Both RHS and RCS findings showed that the watercourses ranged from ‘obviously’ to ‘severely’ modified, typical of lowland systems with a predominantly agricultural/semi-urban setting that have been historically altered for land drainage purposes. In-channel macrophyte growth is restricted due to heavy shading from bank side trees/shrubs or limited in diversity due to the occurrence and encroachment of one or two dominant marginal species within low flow sections.

3.3.12 Seven of the eleven watercourses were assessed under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) at their point of interaction with EWR2. None achieve their WFD objective of being at good ecological status/potential.

Aquatic invertebrates – watercourses 3.3.13 Eleven watercourses within the Aquatic Invertebrates Field Study Area (≤150 m from the Scheme

Boundary) were identified for further assessment. Aquatic invertebrate sampling indicated that most of the watercourses supported aquatic invertebrate communities of low conservation value. Notable aquatic invertebrates were recorded on two watercourses.

Aquatic macrophytes – watercourses 3.3.14 Eleven watercourses within the Aquatic Macrophytes Field Study Area (≤150 m from the Scheme

Boundary) were identified for further assessment. Surveys indicated that watercourses typically supported species poor macrophyte assemblages with very few truly aquatic species and contained only commonly occurring species.

Fish – watercourses 3.3.15 Eleven watercourses within the Fish Field Study Area (≤150 m from the Scheme Boundary) were

identified for further assessment. Electric fishing surveys typically yielded low species richness and abundance with the populations being characterised by the presence of species common to lowland stream systems.

Standing water bodies 3.3.16 Two ponds in Route Section 2A (AF051 and AF059) were identified through PSYM pond surveys as

containing both notable aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates, including the Nationally scarce aquatic beetle Helophorus longitarsis. One pond in Route Section 2E (AF659) has been categorised as having good quality through PSYM survey which qualifies it as a priority pond under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan criteria. The pond contains a good range of submerged and emergent macrophyte species, including one uncommon plant. However, its importance lies in the aquatic invertebrate assemblage it supports, which includes notable taxa, including the Nationally scarce mollusc Gyraulus laevis. 


14

3.3.17 The other three PSYM pond surveys (AF309 in Route Section 2A, AF406 in Route Section 2D and AF167 Route Section 2B) have categorised ponds as having either very poor or poor quality with no notable aquatic species supported.

Evaluation

Watercourses 3.3.18 Water Eaton Brook (AF286): Despite containing an impoverished aquatic invertebrate community of low

conservation value, a very restricted macrophyte assemblage and species poor fish population, the watercourse was considered likely to be important in maintaining the ecological integrity of the Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and was valued at County value.

3.3.19 Claydon Brook (AF184), Horwood Brook (AF229), Langford Brook (AF006), unnamed tributary of Cutters Brook (AF061), Fleet Marston Brook (AF644), two unnamed tributaries of Fleet Marston Brook (AF660 and AF654): A limited range of channel and bank features and flow types supported. Where surveyed, typically contained an impoverished aquatic invertebrate community, a limited macrophyte assemblage and species poor fish population. However, theses watercourses are integral to the maintenance of the ecological integrity of local wildlife sites and have been valued as being of County importance.

3.3.20 All other watercourses screened into the assessment: Typically scoped out the requirement for detailed field survey. Where surveyed these watercourses supported a very limited range of habitats and aquatic species and have been valued as being of Local importance.

Standing water bodies - ponds 3.3.21 AF569: PSYM survey categorised this pond as being of good quality which qualifies it as a priority pond.

The aquatic invertebrate assemblage includes two notable taxa, including the Nationally scarce mollusc Gyraulus laevis. Due to the sedentary nature of this mollusc and its limited dispersal potential, the pond is considered as specifically important for the maintenance of this species at the Regional scale.

3.3.22 AF051 and AF059: PSYM pond surveys categorised these ponds as moderate quality. They both support uncommon macrophyte and notable aquatic invertebrate species and are valued at County importance.

3.3.23 AF048, AF121, AF284 and AF292: Access limitations prevented surveys of these ponds, and therefore a precautionary approach has been applied and they have been valued as being of County importance.

3.3.24 AF039, AF167 and AF406: PSYM pond surveys have categorised these ponds as being very poor/poor quality. Despite this, the ponds provide a locally important aquatic resource and are valued as being of Local importance.

3.3.25 AF030, AF097, AF105 and AF244: Ponds screened out of requirement for PSYM survey based on available HSI data, or due to them being observed as dry at the time of survey.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction 3.3.26 Main river permanent watercourse habitat losses are minimal (up to 3 m) and will not result in significant

effects on watercourse habitats or aquatic species. A further 84.89 m of open watercourse channel and riparian habitat will be lost in total across twelve ordinary watercourses. An additional permanent loss of approximately 8 m of riparian habitat may occur if the proposed crossing structure at construction Compound B6 Bletchley is retained following decommissioning of the compound area.

3.3.27 Impacts such as watercourse pollution, temporary watercourse habitat losses and/or disturbance to aquatic species were also identified in relation to in-channel works that will be required in the construction/refurbishment of crossing structures, drainage works, temporary access route crossings and construction Compounds. It was considered that these temporary local habitat/species losses would not be significant in terms of the long-term maintenance of watercourse ecological integrity.

3.3.28 Ten ponds will be completely lost, and four partially lost as a result of EWR2 as follows:

a) Route Section 2A: six ponds will be completely lost and two will be partially lost;

b) Route Section 2B: two ponds completely lost and two partially lost;

c) Route Section 2C: no ponds affected;


15

d) Route Section 2D: one pond completely lost;

e) Route Section 2E: one pond completely lost.

3.3.29 The following measures to manage the risk of potential impacts on surface water bodies will be employed through the application of the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). 

a) Noise, vibration and light spill will be managed by working back from the watercourses where practicable;

b) Construction lighting will be angled away from the watercourse;

c) Where practicable, percussive (hammer) piling shall be avoided immediately adjacent to watercourses in favour of softer alternatives (e.g. silent sheet piling, vibratory sheet piling). Where this is not practicable, soft start piling procedures will be utilised to provide time for fish to locate away from the source of disturbance prior to full exposure;

d) Required in-channel working will be undertaken during low flow periods (i.e. when flows are at or below the mean average) as far as practicable to reduce the potential for sediment release and risk of scour and using appropriate methods to reduce the risk of pollution;

e) Vegetation clearance from watercourse banks and riparian zones will be reduced as far as reasonably practicable;

f) Where watercourses require permanent/temporary dewatering and/or over-pumping to permit construction activities, fish will be removed by means of electrofishing and relocated prior to dewatering;

g) Water flow/passage will be sufficiently maintained as to not result in the drying of habitats downstream of crossing locations. 

3.3.30 In addition, to mitigate for loss of pond habitats shown to support notable aquatic species as identified through PSYM pond survey (AF051, AF059 and AF659), translocations will be undertaken to suitable receptor ponds within the ECS. The translocation methods will be developed within a mitigation strategy and be based on the ecology of the species and its pond habitat requirements.

3.3.31 The creation of aquatic habitats and enhancement of existing watercourses in the Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS) adequately covers the minor impacts of permanent losses of watercourses and associated species. Watercourse habitat creation and enhancement works include: 

a) Enhancement of the Langford Brook in ECS A1 through the creation of a 50m backwater and marginal planting; 

b) Creation of a 190 m wet ditch in ECS B7.

c) Route Section 2A

− Creation of 50 m backwater channel on the Langford Brook (AF006).

− Improvements to watercourse habitats associated with the 300 m realignment of the unnamed tributary of Launton Brook (AF041) and the realignment of Cutters Brook (AF069) to facilitate an offline culvert replacement.

d) Route Section 2B

− Creation of 190 m wet ditch habitat in ECS B7.

− Improvements to watercourse habitats associated with the 180 m realignment of the unnamed tributary of Horwood Brook (AF245) and the realignment of the unnamed tributary of Claydon Brook (AF200) to facilitate an offline culvert replacement.

− Realignment of approximately 100 m of the Horwood Brook (AF229). The realignment design will act to improve habitat conditions over the current situation through ecological sensitive design including the use of existing channel lengths as backwater habitats. Alongside the design mitigation for realignment works, provision will be made to retain and translocate any native aquatic plants and gravels to the realignment channel to accelerate the process of establishment.

e) Route Section 2D

− Implementation of watercourse habitat improvement works along 540 m of the Elstow Brook (AF511) in ECS D4 (to include backwater creation, in-channel gravel addition to create riffles and marginal planting),


16

− Improvements to watercourse habitats associated the realignment of 190 m of the Caldecotte Brook (AF349) and 90 m the unnamed tributary of Elstow Brook (AF463).

f) Route Section 2E

− Incorporation of ditches into the Route Section 2E ECS at a rate equal to, or greater than, the reported permanent open channel losses in 2E of 53 m.

− Improvements to watercourse habitats associated the 69 m realignment of an unnamed ditch (AF665).

3.3.32 Further details of these proposals are included in the Register of Ecological Mitigation Commitments included in Appendix A of my evidence.

3.3.33 The above works will be completed in advance of construction so that habitats created have established prior to impacts occurring to watercourses.

3.3.34 Proposals to create thirty-seven ponds (nineteen in Route Section 2A, nine in Route Section 2B, seven in Route Section 2C and a minimum of one each in Route Sections 2D and 2E) will result in a minimum net gain of twenty-seven water bodies, delivering a net gain in pond habitat.

3.3.35 Considering the measures detailed above, the construction of EWR2 is not expected to result in a significant residual effect on watercourses (main rivers or ordinary watercourses), standing water bodies or the aquatic species they support. Further compensation measures are proposed below.

3.3.36 For ponds that will be completely or partially lost, any macrophytes or aquatic invertebrates of notable conservation interest that are unlikely to naturally establish in compensation ponds due to, for example, poor dispersal potential or narrow habitat requirements, will to be incorporated into the design of water bodies within the ECS.

3.3.37 Considering the agreed embedded environmental design, mitigation and compensation measures for standing water bodies, the construction of EWR2 is expected to result in a positive effect on standing water bodies that will be significant in a Local context.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts – operation 3.3.38 No impacts on watercourses, standing water bodies or associated species during operation are

anticipated.


17

3.4 Terrestrial invertebrates 3.4.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for terrestrial invertebrates are provided in Appendix 9.12 v2

(in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Surveys undertaken 3.4.2 Surveys undertaken for terrestrial invertebrates comprised:

a) A desk study search extending 2km from the Scheme Boundary (excluding the HS2 Interface Area). The initial data was originally obtained in 2015, updated in 2016 and subsequently updated in December 2017 following the updated Project design.

b) A screening exercise to identify areas potentially requiring specialist surveys for terrestrial invertebrates. The exercise was originally undertaken in 2015 and updated in 2018.

c) Field scoping surveys at the sites screened in to determine whether ground-truthing would substantiate the desk-based assessments that the sites required either detailed full survey for terrestrial invertebrates or targeted species-specific surveys.

d) Sites remaining scoped in were subject to either general entomological surveys or black hairstreak butterfly surveys in 2015, 2016 and 2018.

e) Where species were encountered that were not readily identifiable in the field, specimens of those species were collected for subsequent identification by microscopy and the use of dichotomous keys.

f) Driven glow worms transects were undertaken in 2018 after glow worms were incidentally discovered within Route Section 2B.

g) Modified butterfly transects were also carried out in 2018 to assess the value of habitats within Route Section 2B for their value to terrestrial invertebrates focusing on two main groups: Lepidoptera (namely butterflies) and aculeate Hymenoptera (namely bees and wasps).


Desk study 3.4.3 There are limitations inherent in some aspects of desk study searches which are widely accepted, but

should be acknowledged:

a) Recorder bias;

b) Incomplete data;

c) Data availability lag.

3.4.4 It should be noted that the absence of records of a species in a given area does not equate to the absence of that species.

3.4.5 In the case of this assessment data searches were updated in 2018 to reflect any recent changes in data held by British record centres and changes in the Scheme Boundary.

Field surveys 3.4.6 It was intended that, where surveys were required, the appropriate survey effort was three sessions

spaced out between May and September (as determined by entomologists). In some cases, access to sites was restricted, which was a limitation to survey effort. Where access restrictions precluded the ability of surveyors to undertake a full suite of surveys, it was assumed that, as a minimum, notable species for which records exist within each site are present. In 2018 access was refused at the following sites:

a) Site 66.3 (Verney Junction Station LWS). Previously surveyed in 2015/2016.

b) Site 138.3 (woodland east of unnamed tributary of Padbury Brook).

c) Site 94.4/94.41/94.5 (Clay Pit near Horwood House).

d) Site 92.2 (Newton Longville Brickworks BNS. Another part of the BNS was subject to survey (Site 101.2).


18

e) Site 117.1 (Land north of Newton Longville).

f) Site 558.1/559.1 (Lidlington Rough). Access temporarily refused. Only one visit carried out.

g) Site 2.24 (A421 areas). One visit carried out then access refused for further visits

h) Site 64.1 (A421 areas).

i) Site 9.4 (former Hanson industrial estate).

3.4.7 Where black hairstreak surveys were scoped in due to habitat suitability and were not subsequently undertaken due to a lack of access, it has been assumed that the species is present on site and mitigation has been proposed.

3.4.8 Drought conditions in 2018 were an additional constraint. Overly hot conditions affect nectar flow and, in turn, the activity and detectability of nectaring insects. Reported rainfall for the UK May-July 2018 was lower the same period in 1976 (the benchmark drought) for southern Britain. As such, some surveys were cancelled during July and August, deferring until September and for those sites only two survey visits were undertaken.

3.4.9 Overall, however, an adequate level of survey coverage was obtained.

Results 3.4.10 Survey results for terrestrial invertebrates provided in Appendix 9.12 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) and

summarised in Chapter 9 (Ecology) of Volume 2i (Project Wide) and the relevant Volume 2ii of the ES (NR16) (updated where necessary in Part I of the FEI (NR47)).

3.4.11 Further survey work in 2018 (including full entomological surveys, modified butterfly transects and glow worm surveys) provided additional information regarding invertebrate species across the Scheme Area. A small number of additional notable invertebrates were recorded.

3.4.12 Several notable species of invertebrate were recorded within the Terrestrial Invertebrates Field Survey Study Area (within and immediately adjacent to the Scheme Area). Several areas surveyed (Survey Areas) support multiple notable species:

a) Greatmoor Sailing Club LWS (62S07) in Route Section 2A Field Survey Study Area supports an assemblage of notable invertebrates including the endangered black hairstreak (Satyrium pruni).

b) Bank by Salden Wood LWS (83A01), Salden Wood LWS (83F01) and Railway Siding east of Salden Wood LWS (83F08) in Route Section 2B Field Survey Study Area supports an assemblage of notable invertebrates including dingy skipper (Erynnis tages), grizzled skipper (Pyrgus malvae) and black hairstreak.

c) Blue Lagoon BNS (83R01) and LNR (1008790) in Route Section 2C Field Survey Study Area, which supports the endangered white-letter hairstreak butterfly (Satyrium w-album).

d) Marston Vale Country Park in Route Section 2D Field Survey Study Area supports an assemblage of invertebrates that exceeded the threshold for favourable SSSI condition for the Broad Assemblage type F2 grassland and scrub matrix.

e) Finemere meadows in the Route Section 2E Field Survey Study Area supports several notable invertebrates including purple emperor butterfly (Apatura Iris).

3.4.13 Despite only being recorded in a small number of Survey Areas, given the known distribution of black and brown hairstreak butterflies (Thecla betulae), the presence of blackthorn (Prunus spinose) within the Scheme Area and the number of background records of both species, both black and brown hairstreak are assumed to be present across the Scheme Area.

Evaluation 3.4.14 Terrestrial invertebrates are valued at County importance within the majority of the field survey study area

due to the presence of at least five Nationally Notable species.

3.4.15 Within the Marston Vale Country Park their status is valued as indicative of national level importance, the threshold exceeded for favourable SSSI condition for the Broad Assemblage type F2 grassland and scrub matrix, which is indicative of national level importance.


19

3.4.16 At Blue Lagoon LNR and BNS six nationally notable species were recorded during field visits. In accordance with the Colin Plant Criteria2, the presence of ten or more nationally notable species would qualify the site as being of regional importance for invertebrates. There are desk study records of an additional five species. However, taking into account the quality of habitats present, the nature conservation importance of this site is considered to be no higher than County.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction 3.4.17 Impacts to terrestrial invertebrates are considered likely only during the construction phase of EWR2. The

impacts related to the operational stage of EWR2 are considered to be restricted to those associated with night-time lighting of stations, which is not significant.

3.4.18 Construction impacts include the loss of approximately 58.5 ha of woodland, 39.6 ha of scrub, 42.5 ha of unimproved, marshy, semi-improved and poor semi-improved grassland and 17.3 ha of open mosaic habitat comprising pollen and nectar sources, larval food plants, foraging areas and nesting opportunities for a variety of invertebrate species groups, including notable species such as black hairstreak, brown hairstreak, dingy skipper and grizzled skipper butterflies, all of which have been recorded within the Scheme Area and adjacent land parcels.

3.4.19 Black and brown hairstreak are assumed to be present across the Scheme Area, most notably along the length of Route Sections 2B and 2E where most vegetation has not been subject to any regular maintenance.

3.4.20 Factors important to maintaining conservation status of invertebrate species include the extent and connectivity of habitat. In the case of black and brown hairstreak, especially important is mature blackthorn (which is the larval food plant) in warm sheltered locations, which facilitates egg laying and the development of larvae. Removal of mature habitat is likely to reduce the breeding success of many invertebrate species.

3.4.21 Most invertebrates do not move great distances and have a limited ability to colonise new areas of habitat. As such, habitat removal in the absence of mitigation could permanently sever colonies located to the east and west and north and south of the Scheme Area.

3.4.22 As part of the environmental design, compensatory habitat totalling 221.5 ha will be created in the ECS and along the embankments of the railway once construction is complete. The ECS will incorporate blackthorn and elm (Ulmus sp.) in scrub and hedgerows to support black, brown and white-letter hairstreak butterflies. Wildflower meadow areas will be created in several sites and will include seed mixes to support general invertebrates.

3.4.23 To replicate the conditions of the existing railway, ECS will incorporate south-facing embankments with open exposures for basking butterflies and ground-nesting solitary bees and wasps.

3.4.24 For each Route Section, it is intended that ECS will have approximately 12-18 months to establish prior to any vegetation clearance works within EWR2. An ecological management plan including measures for the benefit of terrestrial invertebrates will be implemented for each of the ECS.

3.4.25 Additional survey information has been used to refine planting proposals to ensure food plants and features for new notable species recorded are included at ECS. This information is provided in Appendix 9.13 V2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

3.4.26 To mitigate for impacts on invertebrate assemblages (non-notable species), the following measures will be implemented:

a) Retention of standing dead wood habitat within the Scheme Boundary to support saproxylic invertebrates such as aerial-nesting solitary bees and wasps. Where standing dead wood cannot be retained, it will be removed intact and relocated to the nearest ECS

b) Retention of any wood from felled trees, to be stacked in suitable places within the Scheme Boundary as invertebrate refugia / log piles. This will support saproxylic invertebrates such as ground beetles and woodlice. Where this is not practicable, log piles will be created in the ECS

c) Retention within the Scheme Boundary of areas of bare earth, sand, chalk exposures or scrapes which may be utilised as basking areas for butterfly species and/or nesting areas for burrowing invertebrate species such as solitary bees and wasps. Where this is not practicable, these

2 https://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/SoSM/Colin_Plant_-_Invertebrates.pdf> [Accessed October

2017]


20

habitats will be created within the ECS and will have a south-facing or east-facing aspect and incorporate a variety of gradients from flat to vertical.

3.4.27 To mitigate for impacts on notable invertebrate species recorded or presumed to be present within the Scheme Area the following species-specific mitigation measures will be incorporated:

a) Retention within the Scheme Boundary of known larval food plants for notable species of invertebrate (flowers, grasses, shrubs or trees). Where this is not practicable, larval food plants will be translocated (if appropriate, as in woody species) to ECS areas, or if translocation is not appropriate, replacement planting (using plants/trees of an age appropriate to support the life cycle of the target species) and inclusion of plant species in seed mixes in both the ECS and the newly regraded embankments will be provided

b) Incorporation of large amounts of bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) into the seed mixes of the ECS, to support butterflies including dingy skipper and grizzled skipper, which have been recorded throughout the Scheme Boundary and its adjacent land parcels

c) Incorporation of large amounts of meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis), common vetch (Vicia sativa) and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) into the seed mixes of the ECS. This will support the endangered wood white butterfly, which has been recorded within the Scheme Boundary

d) Retention within the Scheme Boundary, of nectar and pollen sources appropriate to the target invertebrate species. Where this is not practicable, nectar and pollen plant species will be included in seed mixes in in both the ECS and the newly re-graded embankments.

e) Where necessary, a search for black hairstreak eggs will be carried out by an appropriately qualified ecologist prior to the removal of blackthorn from Route Section 2B, and eggs moved to suitable retained vegetation.

3.4.28 Considering the environmental design measures and the additional mitigation measures detailed above, the construction of EWR2 is not expected to result in a significant residual effect on terrestrial invertebrates.


21

3.5 White-clawed crayfish 3.5.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for white-clawed crayfish are provided in Appendix 9.3 v2 (in

Part II of the FEI (NR47)). 

Introduction 3.5.2 White-clawed crayfish are classified as Endangered (EN) on the IUCN Red List and listed as a priority

species for conservation in the UK under the England Biodiversity List. Within Oxfordshire white-clawed crayfish are described as restricted to upstream locations and remaining populations are disappearing. Within Buckinghamshire, signal crayfish are noted as a significant biodiversity issue causing large declines in the white-clawed crayfish through spread of the crayfish plague. Within Bedfordshire only one known population existed on a short stretch of the River Ivel in 2005, and this population is understood to have been later translocated to ZSL Whipsnade Zoo. Local Wildlife Site selection criteria (in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire) and County Wildlife Site criteria (in Bedfordshire) would be met where a viable white-clawed crayfish population is identified.

Surveys undertaken  3.5.3 Surveys undertaken for white-clawed crayfish comprised: 

a) A desk study in which aquatic features, both watercourses and waterbodies, were identified

b) Screening of the aquatic features for suitability for survey

c) Habitat suitability assessment in 2016 and 2017

d) Presence/ likely absence surveys (multiple methods) in 2016

e) Habitat suitability assessment and presence/likely absence surveys using multiple methods, including hand searching and netting, were undertaken between May and October 2018.

3.5.4 Two habitat suitability surveys were conducted in 2016 along with one crayfish survey using overnight baited traps.  82 aquatic features (70 watercourses and 12 water bodies) were screened in for further survey within the White-clawed Crayfish Field Survey Study Area (≤10 m from the Scheme Boundary).

3.5.5 In 2018, habitat surveys were undertaken at 41 of the 83 aquatic features screened in for survey. The other aquatic features that were previously screened in previously were scoped out, either because there was no watercourse at the given location, the watercourse was dry, signal crayfish were present or the habitat was not considered suitable to support white-clawed crayfish. These sites are not considered further. From the 41 habitat suitability surveys, seven aquatic features were found to offer suitable habitat suitable habitat for white-clawed crayfish and all were subject to detailed field survey work.

Limitations to surveys undertaken  3.5.6 Access was refused for two aquatic features, and access was not possible for two other aquatic features,

but it was possible to make observations from the track for all four and they were deemed to be unsuitable for supporting white-clawed crayfish so no further surveys were required. Access was not possible for two aquatic features as the landowner asked the surveyors to leave. Dense vegetation limited access in some sections elsewhere, but suitable sections were searchable, and the channel was choked with vegetation and heavily poached by cattle at one location. Access was not possible to the Great River Ouse in Bedford. 

Results  3.5.7 In 2016, the trapping survey recorded one signal crayfish, indicating the likely absence of white-clawed

crayfish at this location (for detail refer to Appendix 9.3 v2 in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

3.5.8 In 2018, further surveys found no evidence of white-clawed crayfish during detailed field survey work. Signal crayfish were found to be present.  All other aquatic features were scoped out, either because there was no watercourse at the given location, the watercourse was dry, signal crayfish were present or the habitat was not considered suitable to support white-clawed crayfish.   It is likely that the species is absent from the White-clawed Crayfish Field Survey Study Area.


22

3.6 Great crested newts 3.6.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for great crested newts are provided in Appendix 9.8 v2 (in

Part II of the FEI (NR47)). Locations are included in the updated Figure 9.14 (in Part III of the FEI (NR47)).

3.6.2 Great crested newts are an Important Ecological feature (IEF) as they are a European protected species, listed on the England Biodiversity List. Great crested newts are a priority species for conservation that are widespread in the UK but in decline. They are common and widespread in Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire.  Any waterbody in Oxfordshire or Buckinghamshire that supports a population of great crested newts where a breeding-season night count shows 20 or more individuals may be considered for LWS status.  In Bedfordshire, large populations may be considered for CWS status.

Surveys undertaken 3.6.3 730 water bodies were assessed for the purpose of compiling the ES (NR16), which included the

additional survey work completed in 2018, of which 128 were screened out. Surveys undertaken for great crested newts comprised:  

a) A desk study records search extending 2 km to determine the status of great crested newt populations in the wider landscape and provide geographical context. 

b) A Field Survey Study Area of 500 m due to this being the Ecological Zone of Influence for great crested newts and the area in which great crested newts may be subject to impacts and subsequent effects (both positive and negative) as a result of the Project. 

c) Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment, (141 in 2016/2017 and 351 in 2018);  

d) Presence/ likely absence surveys (54 in 2016/2017 and 156 in 2018). 

Limitations to surveys undertaken 3.6.4 Some limitations affected several great crested newt survey methods, these are reported in the updated

Appendix 9.8 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)). Where significant limitations were encountered a medium population was assumed. Limitations included: 

a) difficulties accessing water body margins due to health and safety concerns regarding steep banks, deep water, dense vegetation and public access;

b) other land access restrictions or permissions (including restricted access due to flooding); 

c) limited access/possessions for sections of EWR2 with live lines (including gaining possessions too late for surveys to be resourced as intended); 

d) water temperature being less than 5oC meaning bottle trapping was not possible. Where this happened other survey methods were utilised and additional visits carried out;

e) water bodies surveyed outside the optimal survey period and found to be dry were assumed to have a medium population unless there was no evidence to suggest suitable habitat for great crested newts, such as presence of aquatic vegetation;

f) cattle accessing the water which could lead to a false positive for eDNA samples.

Gaps in data and coverage 3.6.5 Due to the large nature of the Project and the limitations above, any sites where there were incomplete

surveys or which could not be accessed following the additional surveys in 2018 were assumed to have a medium population of great crested newts.

3.6.6 Where a linear water body has been surveyed in part but access to survey the remainder of the water body has not been achieved, the survey result is assumed for the entire water body. Where a water body has been surveyed by eDNA or presence/ likely absence survey and presence is confirmed but no population size class assessment has been undertaken, a medium population size class is assumed. Where there was a lack of survey data or the eDNA result was inconclusive, but desk study data were available and suggest a population size this population size has been assumed.  Where an assessment for great crested newt presence was not possible due to limited access or incomplete survey data, great crested newt presence and a medium population size class is assumed.


23

3.6.7 The Scheme boundary was finalised in July 2018, after the scoping exercise for great crested newts was carried out in March and April 2018 and it is therefore possible that some ponds screened out as over 500m away are now just within this distance. Overall, however, a good level of survey coverage was achieved making a robust impact assessment possible.

Results   3.6.8 Survey results for great crested newts are provided in Appendix 9.8 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47),

Chapter 9 (Ecology) of Volume 2i (Project-wide) of the ES (NR16) and the relevant Route Sections of the ES (NR16). 

3.6.9 These surveys identified great crested newts as present in 83 water bodies within the Great Crested Newt Field Survey Study Area (≤500 m from the Scheme Boundary) based on a combination of eDNA surveys and population size class assessments undertaken in 2017 and 2018. These populations are shown on Figure 9.14 (in Part III of the FEI (NR47)). Due to the density of water bodies throughout the Great Crested Newt Field Survey Study Area, great crested newts using these water bodies are likely to be part of large meta-populations.

3.6.10 A total of 382 water bodies have been scoped out of further survey as great crested newts are likely absent, or the water body found to be unsuitable for great crested newts. Due to incomplete survey results, inconclusive eDNA results or water bodies not being accessed for survey, on a precautionary basis, there are a further 263 water bodies with assumed populations of great crested newt. Based on the known population sizes and distribution of great crested newts in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, it is likely that many of these water bodies support great crested newts. In the absence of survey data for these water bodies, following a precautionary approach it is assumed that all un-surveyed water bodies support medium sized populations of great crested newts. 

3.6.11 Further details on the results of survey, the precautionary approach followed for establishing the great crested newt baseline are provided in Appendix 9.8 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

3.6.12 Using the above precautionary approach, assuming great crested newt presence in all un-surveyed water bodies, GCN were found in 27 ponds within the scheme footprint and 15 located directly adjacent to the footprint. (These are listed in Tables 11.3; 11.6; 11.9; 11.12; 11.18 within Part I of the FEI (NR47)). All but 3 of these supported a medium population.  Ponds at GCN_010/011, GCN_008 (2A) and GCN_338 (2E) supported small populations. Ponds GCN_172 and GCN_119 supported a large population. Where small populations were found, but survey data were incomplete due to access restrictions, a medium population was assumed.

3.6.13 In Route Section 2A, nine of the 75 water bodies with known or assumed populations of great crested newts are located within the Scheme Area and a further two are located directly adjacent to the Scheme Boundary. (Table 11:3, Part I of the FEI (NR47)). In Route Section 2B, four of the 92 water bodies with known or assumed populations of great crested newts are located within the Scheme Area and a further six are located directly adjacent to the Scheme Area. (Table 11:6, Part I of FEI). In Route Section 2C there are 10 water bodies with known or assumed populations of great crested newts. The closest of these water bodies, GCN_125, is located approximately 5 m south of the Scheme Boundary. (Table 11:9, in Part I of the FEI (NR47)). In Route Section 2D six of the 95 water bodies with known or assumed populations of great crested newts are located within the Scheme Area and a further four are located directly adjacent to the Scheme Boundary. (Table 11:12, Part I of FEI). In Route Section 2E eight of the 73 water bodies with known or assumed populations of great crested newts are located within the Scheme Area and a further two are located directly adjacent to the Scheme Boundary. (Table 11:18, Part I of the FEI (NR47)).

3.6.14 Large populations were recorded at two ponds, GCN_492 (2A) and GCN_119 (2B). GCN_119 was a water body where great crested newt populations will lose core, intermediate and distant terrestrial habitat and GCN_492 was a water body where great crested newt populations will lose intermediate and distant terrestrial habitat.

3.6.15 71 ponds were found not to contain GCN following survey, (17 in Route Section 2A, 31 in Route Section 2B, 3 in Route Section 2C, 17 in Route Section 2D and 3 in Route Section 2E). A full description of survey results is included in TA 9.8 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) and summarised in Part I of the FEI (NR47).

Nature conservation evaluation  3.6.16 The further surveys conducted in 2018 did not alter the nature conservation evaluation made in the ES,

that great crested newts represented a feature of County Importance. Great Crested Newts are a Priority Species that are widespread in the UK, but in decline.


24

Impacts, mitigation and residential impacts – construction 3.6.17 Table 11.1 within the Further Environmental Information Report details the aquatic and terrestrial habitat

losses, and the environmental design measures that will compensate for the impacts to great crested newts from EWR2. 

3.6.18 EWR2 will result in the complete loss of 13 ponds and one linear water body either known or assumed to support great crested newts. Of these, great crested newts are confirmed present in six ponds, and assumed present in seven ponds and one linear water body.  

3.6.19 There are an additional 13 linear water bodies assumed to support great crested newts that will be partially lost within the Scheme Boundary: one within Route Section 2A, two within Route Section 2B, four within Route Section 2D and six within Route Section 2E.

Mitigation  3.6.20 Ponds supporting great crested newts (or those assumed to support great crested newts) will be replaced

at a minimum ratio of 2:1. Linear waterbodies supporting great crested newts (or assumed to support great crested newts) that will be subject to partial loss only will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio.

a) Route Section 2A: Loss of 8 ponds (complete loss of 6 ponds and partial loss of 2 ponds). Total of 19 ponds to be created in ECS A3, ECS A4, ECS A5, ECS 6 and ECS A7

b) Route Section 2B: Loss of 2 ponds (complete loss of 1 pond and partial loss of 1 pond). Total of 9 ponds and one linear waterbody to be created in ECS B7, ECS B9, ECS B10 and ECS B13

c) Route Section 2C: No loss of ponds. Total of 7 ponds to be created in ECS C1

d) Route Section 2D: Loss of 2 ponds. Minimum of 4 ponds will be created in ECS3

e) Route Section 2E: Loss of 1 pond (partial loss) and 1 linear water body (complete loss) Minimum of 6 ponds will be created in ECS4

3.6.21 The net gain in water bodies, and creation of terrestrial habitat in ECS A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B2, B7, B9, B10, B13, B17, B23, B26, C1, D2, E3 and E4 will compensate for the potential long-term effects to great crested newts from habitat loss during construction. Habitat will be created approximately 12 months in advance of any construction works starting in a location, to provide suitable habitat prior to the removal of existing habitat.

3.6.22 Further detail on each of the ECS is provided in Appendix 9.13 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)). Each of the ECS listed above will be subject to a 30-year maintenance and management plan as part of a legal agreement between Network Rail and the landowner in accordance with the requirements of a protected species mitigation licence strategy from Natural England. The habitats created will be subject to appropriate maintenance and monitoring.

3.6.23 Great crested newts will be protected during construction by the appropriate use of fencing and trapping from areas to be affected under licence to Natural England.

3.6.24 When habitat is removed from the existing railway, there will be a loss of connectivity for great crested newts during construction and the period of time it takes for newly seeded grassland to sufficiently establish, with any translocated populations isolated from each other in the ECS. Each ECS has therefore been designed to include sufficient amounts of terrestrial and aquatic habitat to maintain the populations during the construction period. Additional terrestrial habitats that will remain unaffected by EWR2, typically in the form of hedgerows forming the boundaries of arable fields, are present adjacent to each ECS which great crested newts will be able to use as wildlife corridors, foraging sites and refuges.

3.6.25 Following construction, the embankments will be seeded with a grassland mix and planted with scrub which will sufficiently establish within 1-2 years to provide long-term connectivity through the landscape for juvenile dispersal, colonisation of ECS where translocation has not taken place, and genetic transference between populations (see environmental design drawings in Volume 4 of the ES (NR16), including the landscaping of the embankments).

3 Detailed design of these ECS has not been completed at this stage. 4 Detailed design of these ECS has not been completed at this stage.


25

Residual impacts  3.6.26 The environmental design measures and the mitigation mentioned above for great crested newts will result

in the net gain of 33 ponds and approximately 31 ha of terrestrial habitat. Although there will be a short-term loss of connectivity during construction, due to the net gains in habitat, the long-term replacement of connectivity post construction, and the long-term protection of the ECS, EWR2 is expected to result in a positive effect on great crested newts significant at a County scale.

Impacts, mitigation and residential impacts – operation 3.6.27 No operational effects are anticipated and hence no further mitigation is required.


26

3.7 Reptiles 3.7.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for reptiles are provided in Appendix 9.9 v2 (in Part II of the

FEI (NR47)). 

Introduction 3.7.2 All reptile species are listed as priority species for conservation in the UK under the England Biodiversity

List. Grass snake are common and widely distributed in the Milton Keynes area, whereas common lizard and slow worm are less common and more patchily distributed. 

3.7.3 Although only very small numbers of adder have been recorded in Buckinghamshire, they are of high conservation importance due to their local rarity.

Surveys undertaken  3.7.4 Presence/ likely absence surveys were undertaken route-wide in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2018. Additional

surveys for adders in Route Section 2B were undertaken between May and September 2018.

3.7.5 Further detail of the surveys, including justification for assumed populations is provided in Appendix 9.9 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Limitations to surveys undertaken  3.7.6 A number of reptile mats were lost during the 2013 survey period, and not replaced. Surveys were not

impacted by reptile mat loss in 2014.

3.7.7 Weather conditions during the surveys carried out in 2013/2014 are not available; however, known deviations from the survey guidelines are documented as follows. Part of the 2013 survey was undertaken during October, which is a sub-optimal survey month; however, weather conditions were suitable for surveying reptiles for all of most visits and part of one. On three visits in 2013 and four visits in 2014, the temperature temporarily rose above the recommended optimal temperatures for surveying reptiles; however, it is unlikely that this temporary rise in temperature negatively affected survey results. Within Route Section 2B the entire length of the track was surveyed, rather than a representative sample (as per all other Route Sections) so populations are assessed as being either present or likely absent rather than calculating population size.   

3.7.8 In 2015, access issues limited field surveys and some areas were found to be unsafe for survey on account of insufficient clearance from the running rail. However, the extent of the accessible Scheme Area subject to survey was considered sufficient to enable survey results to provide an adequate representation of reptile populations in the area. The Milton Keynes sub-section could not be surveyed as fast-moving trains dislodged secured refugia, which was consequently removed. Health and safety considerations limited the use of metal refugia, but other types of refugia were utilised so this was not considered to have significantly affected the survey findings. The 2015 surveys continued into October, which includes sub-optimal survey months. However, the weather conditions in October 2015 were unseasonably warm and suitable for reptile surveys and is not considered to be a significant limitation to the survey results. On one occasion, sub-optimal weather conditions occurred, but reptiles were still recorded during these surveys. Nevertheless, to comply with the guidelines, additional survey visits were carried out to ensure that at least seven visits occurred during suitable weather conditions.

3.7.9 No access issues were reported by the surveyors in 2018. On five occasions, field surveys were affected by temperatures becoming too high to be considered a valid survey for adder in 2018 and surveys were re-scheduled.

Results  Species present

3.7.10 The background records identified one record of adder was returned (2005), c. 402 m north of the existing railway corridor and Habitat Area Fig 9.15F (95900 - 92900), Volume 4, with connectivity present via hedgerows and grassland.

3.7.11 Common Lizard were recorded in all Route Sections with a good population in Sections 2A and 2D. In Route Section 2C they were assumed to be present.


27

3.7.12 Grass snakes were recorded Route Wide with low populations in Route Sections 2A, 2D and 2E. In Route Section 2C where they were assumed to be present.

3.7.13 Slow worms were likely absent from Route Sections 2A, 2B and 2C but a low population was recorded in Route Sections 2D and 2E.

3.7.14 No adders were found in any of the seven survey areas in 2018. This species is considered uncommon and in decline within Buckinghamshire. Despite the absence of adder in the 2018 field surveys, taking a precautionary approach based on the 2013 surveys and desk study records, adder is assumed to be present in very low numbers in Route Section 2B.  

3.7.15 In 2018, common lizard and grass snake were also recorded within the Adder Survey Areas, confirming the continued presence of these species within the Scheme Area. Slow worm were not recorded and are likely absent from the Adder Survey Areas.

3.7.16 Adder Survey Areas are shown on Figure 9.16 (in Part III of the FEI (NR47)). Further details regarding the survey and results are provided in Appendix 9.9 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).  

Evaluation 3.7.17 Reptile populations present within the Scheme Area were evaluated for their importance using a

geographic frame of reference based on Ecological Impact Assessment guidance published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. 

3.7.18 Reptile assemblages (of common lizard, grass snake, slow worm and adder) are considered to be of County Importance. All species are listed as Priority Species for Conservation in the UK on the England Biodiversity List. Grass snakes are common and widely distributed in the Milton Keynes area, whereas common lizard and slow worm are less common and more patchily distributed. Adder are rare in Buckinghamshire, known to inhabit only a few sites.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction  3.7.19 There will be a loss of terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and loss of connectivity for reptiles, when habitat is

removed during construction as follows. There will be impacts on 26 water bodies, suitable as grass snake habitat, throughout the route including the complete loss of 13 ponds, the complete loss of three linear water bodies, and the partial loss of ten ponds.

3.7.20 There will be a loss of terrestrial habitat of 287.3 ha of varying quality for reptiles throughout the route ranging from 15.9 ha in Route 2C to 134.8 ha in Route 2B. When habitat is removed from the existing railway, there will be a loss of connectivity for reptiles during construction and the period of time it takes for newly seeded grassland to sufficiently establish, with any translocated populations isolated from each other between the ECS.

3.7.21 Adder continue to be assumed as present in Route Section 2B. Mitigation proposed will provide habitat suitable for adder if this species if present outside the Scheme Area, or if found to be present during further surveys or on-site enabling works.

3.7.22 Reptiles will be removed from the Scheme Area prior to any construction works starting in that location using a combination of artificial refugia and reptile-proof fencing. Particular effort will be focused in those areas where adders could be present due to their conservation significance. Reptiles will be relocated to the nearest ECS to where they were captured.

3.7.23 The loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be managed through the embedded environmental design which includes ECS, standard best practice measures and CoCP. 

3.7.24 Between thirty-eight and forty-one new waterbodies and one ditch will be built in compensation for the loss of aquatic habitat, and 354.1 ha of terrestrial habitat will be created to compensate for the terrestrial habitat loss.

3.7.25 A number of ECS sites will be designed to compensate for the impacts of habitat loss to populations of common lizard, grass snake, slow worm and adder. These sites include ponds, ditches, grassland, scrub, hedgerows, woodland, south-facing reptile embankments, log piles, rubble areas, hibernacula and grass snake egg-laying sites. Further detail on each of the ECS detailed above, including designs of ponds and hibernacula suitable for reptiles, is provided in Appendix 9.13 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) and summarised in section 3.14 of my evidence. 


28

3.7.26 Suitable habitats created within the ECS and reinstated within the railway corridor will compensate for the potential long-term impacts to reptiles from habitat loss during construction. Habitats will be created as early as practicable to provide ecological functionality. 

3.7.27 Each ECS has been designed to include sufficient amounts of habitat to maintain the populations during the construction period to allow continued connectivity while new corridors establish. Additional terrestrial habitats that will remain unaffected by EWR2, typically in the form of hedgerows forming the boundaries of arable fields, are present adjacent to each ECS which reptiles will be able to use as wildlife corridors, foraging sites and refuges. 

3.7.28 In addition to the habitat created in the ECS listed above, following construction the embankments will be seeded with a grassland mix and planted with scrub which will establish to provide suitable reptile habitat and will maintain connectivity through the landscape for juvenile dispersal, colonisation of other habitat areas and genetic transference between populations (Volume 4 of the ES (NR16) for the environmental design drawings including the landscaping of the embankments). 

3.7.29 HS2 will affect several populations of reptiles including adder inhabiting Aylesbury Park Golf Course and the west to east railway west of Queens Catherine Road. HS2 will create several areas of terrestrial and aquatic habitat to compensate for impacts to reptiles. These areas are the same areas created for great crested newt. Reptiles, including adder on the west to east railway between Route Section 2A and 2B will be captured and translocated into these receptor sites by HS2 prior to any construction works starting on either HS2 or EWR2. As described above, where a risk of reptiles in these compensation sites being affected by EWR2 is identified, HS2 will encircle the habitat areas with amphibian proof fencing so that reptiles are not subject to impacts from both Projects.  

3.7.30 Considering the environmental design measures and the mitigation detailed above for reptiles, although there will be a short-term loss of habitat and connectivity during construction, due to the terrestrial and aquatic habitat creation and the long-term reinstatement of connective habitat post construction, EWR2 is not expected to result in a significant residual effect on reptiles.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - operation   3.7.31 Habitat loss could impact populations of reptiles. Grass snake, common lizard, slow worm and adder have

small home ranges so it is unlikely reptiles beyond those habitats within or immediately adjacent to the Scheme Area will be subject to any impacts. 

3.7.32 Reptiles frequently occupy the habitats within and surrounding railways, in particular the vegetated embankments. During operation, the railway will be managed according to NR standards which include sensitive working practices for biodiversity. As such, no impacts to reptiles during operation are predicted.


29

3.8 Birds, including Barn Owls 3.8.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for breeding/wintering birds and for barn owls are provided

in Appendices 9.10 v2 and 9.11 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Surveys undertaken Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.2 Surveys undertaken for breeding and wintering birds comprised:

a) a desk study records search extending 5km from the Scheme Boundary, including a review of local bird reports and biodiversity action plans (undertaken in 2017);

b) a desk-based analysis of aerial and Ordnance Survey mapping to identify features in the wider landscape which typically support breeding and wintering birds;

c) targeted surveys of breeding birds using an adapted version of the Common Birds Census (CBC) (undertaken from April to July 2018, inclusive); and

d) targeted surveys of wintering birds using an adapted version of the CBC and the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), where appropriate (undertaken from January to early-April 2018, inclusive).

Barn owls 3.8.3 Surveys undertaken for barn owls comprised:

a) a desk study records search to identify species records extending 5km from the Scheme Boundary (undertaken in 2015 and updated in 2018);

b) a desk-based analysis of aerial imagery to identify areas which provide suitable foraging habitat for this species;

c) a desk- and field-based screening exercise to identify areas supporting potentially suitable foraging habitat, and nesting and roosting sites; and

d) Stage 1 and 2 barn owl surveys up to 1km from the Scheme (undertaken in 2015), with additional surveys up to 175m from the Scheme (undertaken in 2018).

Limitations to surveys undertaken 3.8.4 Some limitations affected the bird survey methods. In general, these limitations included:

a) land access restrictions (including restricted access due to flooding or other hazards);

b) limited access/possessions for sections of EWR2 with live lines (including gaining possessions too late for surveys to be resourced as intended);

c) the absence of landowner permission due to either a refusal to grant access, being unable to contact landowners or landowner restrictions on survey timing;

d) adverse weather conditions;

e) availability of surveyors to undertake the surveys required (for example through ill health);

f) restrictions on entering unsafe buildings to carry out barn owl surveys;

g) barn owl boxes being inaccessible for inspection;

h) a suspension on the use of ladders during barn owl surveys from 11 June to 24 September 2018 on health and safety grounds.

Gaps in data and coverage Breeding bird surveys

3.8.5 Surveys were limited in the following two areas due to refusal of access:


30

a) No breeding bird surveys were undertaken in one of the Breeding Bird Field Survey Areas (BB_2E_005).

b) A reduced number of breeding bird survey visits were completed at the following Breeding Bird Survey Areas: BB_2E_002 and BB_2E_006 (one of six survey visits completed in both cases); and BB_2A_001 and BB_2D_002 (five of six visits completed in both cases).

3.8.6 Where breeding bird surveys took place, land access restrictions also often prevented the surveyors from accessing all parts of the Bird Field Survey Area. Table 2.1 in Appendix 9.10 v2 (In Part II of the FEI (NR47)) provides an approximation of the degree of survey coverage that was achieved at each Breeding Bird Survey Area. In some cases, visual and auditory access was sufficient to allow good survey coverage from adjacent land parcels. Overall, adequate survey coverage was achieved.

Wintering bird surveys 3.8.7 Surveys were restricted by lack of site access in the following areas:

a) No wintering bird surveys were undertaken at two of the Wintering Bird Survey Areas (WB_2Bii and WB_2Eiii).

b) A reduced number of wintering bird survey visits were completed at two of the Wintering Bird Survey Areas (WB_2Di and WB_2Dii) (two of three survey visits completed in each case).

c) Survey visits in February were not possible at one Wintering Bird Survey Area (WB_2Biii); to achieve three survey visits in total, a wintering bird survey was carried out in early-April 2018.

Barn owls 3.8.8 Due to the limitations on access to land outside of EWR2, only 17% of the areas considered suitable for

supporting barn owls were surveyed. In the absence of survey information, the number of breeding territories which could be present within the Barn Owl Field Survey Study Area was calculated based upon habitat suitability information and the average size of a barn owl’s home range using GIS software.

Results Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.9 The desk study and field surveys identified a breeding and wintering bird assemblage typical of lowland farmland, woodland, scrub and wetland habitats.

3.8.10 The breeding bird surveys recorded a range of species of particular nature conservation importance, including (but not limited to): common pochard, grey partridge, lapwing, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, turtle dove, cuckoo, marsh tit, skylark, willow warbler, starling, song thrush, mistle thrush, spotted flycatcher, nightingale, tree sparrow, house sparrow, yellow wagtail, grey wagtail, linnet, corn bunting, yellowhammer, and reed bunting. A heronry was recorded at South Lake (in Route Section 2B) and desk study records indicate that 11 nests were occupied in 2015, which equated to the second largest known breeding colony in Buckinghamshire. The breeding bird surveys also identified the following species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) as breeding (or likely to be breeding) in the vicinity of EWR2: red kite, kingfisher, hobby, and Cetti’s warbler.

3.8.11 Species of nature conservation importance that were recorded during the wintering bird surveys included (but were not limited to): shoveler, gadwall, wigeon, mallard, teal, pochard, grey partridge, golden plover, lapwing, snipe, black-headed gull, common gull, lesser black-backed gull, herring gull, greater black-backed gull, starling, skylark, yellowhammer, and reed bunting.

3.8.12 Full details of the breeding and wintering bird assemblages and species, including their distributions and relative abundances are provided in Appendix 9.10 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Barn owls 3.8.13 In the absence of field survey data for the majority of Survey Areas, including the known breeding sites, it

has been estimated that the habitat within the Barn Owl Field Survey Study Area has the potential to support up to 47 breeding pairs of barn owls.


31

Evaluation Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.14 For the purposes of nature conservation evaluation, the ‘Birds’ ecological feature was divided into 27 sub-features. These are set out for each Route Section in the Supplementary Assessment Report. They can be summarised as follows:

a) Breeding and wintering bird assemblages of County nature conservation importance associated with farmland, woodland, scrub, hedgerow and wetland habitats across EWR2. This include the relatively continuous areas of these habitats which lie adjacent to EWR2, as well as those associated with discrete sites/features of nature conservation importance such as, for example, Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve (LNR) & Biological Notification Site (BNS) and Sheephouse Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

b) Species that were recorded during the breeding season surveys in numbers which were considered likely to be indicative of populations of County nature conservation importance within a particular Route Section, as follows: common pochard (Route Section 2D); grey heron (Route Section 2B); herring gull (Route Sections 2A & HS2 Interface Area); lesser black-backed gull (Route Section 2D); turtle dove (Route Sections 2A & 2D); willow warbler (Route Section 2A); nightingale (Route Section 2D); yellow wagtail (Route Section 2A); yellowhammer (Route Sections 2A, 2D & 2E); and reed bunting (Route Sections 2A, 2D & 2E).

Barn owls 3.8.15 The estimate of 47 pairs of barn owls within the Barn Owl Field Survey Study Area is approximately 8% of

the combined county populations for Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. This species is therefore considered to be of County nature conservation importance.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.16 Potential construction impacts on breeding and wintering birds would comprise habitat loss, damage/destruction of occupied nests, and habitat degradation due to construction-related noise and visual disturbance.

3.8.17 Project construction would result in a loss of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for breeding and wintering birds. However, this impact would be short to medium-term in its duration, as EWR2 design includes embedded landscaping and environmental measures to address habitat losses. These include:

a) new hedgerow, scrub and tree planting along the new railway boundaries; and

b) the creation of several ECSs (totalling 86.5ha) that would establish in the medium to long term to provide new areas of wildflower meadow, rough grassland, hedgerow, scrub, woodland and wetland habitat. Specific measures for some of the rarer farmland birds (including specific grass/seed mixes for species such as turtle dove) would be included.

3.8.18 In the absence of mitigation site clearance works could also result in the injuring or killing of nesting birds and the damage and/or destruction of their nests. Efforts will be made to avoid vegetation clearance during the nesting bird season (typically March to August inclusive), with mitigation measures adopted where this is not possible.

3.8.19 Significant displacement effects upon birds would not be expected as a result of construction noise. The large extent of farmland in EWR2’s wider surroundings would likely accommodate any small-scale displacement of farmland birds due to short-term disturbance. It is also expected that birds would habituate to long-term regular noise at lower levels. Notwithstanding this, mitigation is proposed in relation to disturbance of nesting grey herons at South Lake, and birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended).

Barn owls 3.8.20 Construction of EWR2 will not result in the loss of any known Occupied Breeding Sites, or roosting sites.

However, EWR2’s construction could result in the loss of potential nest sites, and possibly Occupied Breeding Sites which are yet to be identified due to lack of access.


32

3.8.21 Six Occupied Breeding Sites and 20 Potential Nest Sites are located within 175 m of the boundary of EWR2. Additional Occupied Breeding Sites or Potential Nest Sites could be present within areas that have not yet been surveyed. In the absence of mitigation, barn owls using these features could be subject to disturbance impacts during EWR2’s construction.

3.8.22 Small-scale losses of foraging habitat as a result of EWR2’s construction would not represent a significant impact.

Mitigation Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.23 Where site clearance works are required during the bird nesting season, measures would be adopted to avoid the disturbance, damage and destruction of any occupied nests. These would include:

a) Inspections of potentially suitable nesting habitats/features to identify whether any occupied nests are present in advance of site clearance taking place during the bird breeding season (typically March to August inclusive).

b) Pre-construction surveys to identify the potential presence of Schedule 1 birds that may be at risk of disturbance during the nesting season.

c) Dedicated monitoring (and, where necessary, watching briefs) during the course of construction works in the vicinity of the heronry at South Lake.

3.8.24 If any nesting birds are identified during the survey they will be left in situ for their entire nesting period and alternative approaches to the work proposed. This may include leaving an exclusion zone around the nests to avoid disturbance. Appropriate mitigation measures, including the use of location-specific screening to manage noise and visual disturbance, will be implemented as necessary so that Schedule 1 birds or breeding grey herons at South Lake are not disturbed during the nesting season.

Barn owls 3.8.25 Any barn owl nest sites that would be lost or disturbed during Project construction would be closed, with

replacement artificial nest boxes erected in suitable areas in excess of 200m from the Scheme boundary where agreement with landowners permits.

Residual impacts Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.26 Considering the environmental design measures and further mitigation and compensation detailed above, the construction of EWR2 is not expected to result in a significant residual impact on breeding and wintering birds.

Barn owls 3.8.27 Residual impacts upon barn owls are assessed in the absence of mitigation, since the availability of sites

for replacement artificial nest boxes cannot be guaranteed. The closure of nesting sites within 175 m of EWR2 is considered to represent a significant negative effect at a Local level.

Impacts, mitigation and residual effects – operation

Impacts Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.28 Potential operational impacts on birds comprise: killing or injury of birds through collision with trains; and disturbance through light, noise and vibration, particularly in Route Section 2B where the line is not currently operational.

3.8.29 Increased levels of mortality through collisions with trains could have a significant effect upon grey herons breeding at South Lake, and wetland birds flying to/from Blue Lagoon LNR & BNS. Additional measures in relation to this potential impact are proposed in relation to the heronry at South Lake; however, no such measures are deemed likely to be effective at Blue Lagoon LNR & BNS. Collision-related mortality is


33

considered unlikely to result in levels of mortality that would be significant at population levels in relation to other bird assemblages and species elsewhere along EWR2. This is due to a combination of factors, including: limited increases in train movements (in Route Section 2D), the likelihood that birds habituate to train movements (as is likely the case under the existing situation along many parts of EWR2), the likely frequency with which collisions would occur and the effect that this would have upon populations in general (compared to other causes of existing mortality).

3.8.30 Increased levels of noise and visual disturbance are considered unlikely to give rise to significant displacement effects on birds. EWR2 design includes the use of modern engineering solutions that would reduce operational noise (e.g. the use of continuously welded rails). Existing tree planting would provide visual screening of train movements at wetland and woodland sites (such as Marston Millennium Country Park and Sheephouse Wood SSSI). The large availability of farmland habitat in EWR2’s wider surroundings would be expected to accommodate any small-scale displacement of farmland birds caused by EWR2’s operation. Birds would also be expected to habituate to regular train movements (which is already likely to be the case in Route Sections 2A, 2C, 2D and the HS2 Interface Area, where train movements occur under the existing situation).

Barn owls 3.8.31 There is potential for adverse impacts to barn owls through collision with trains, particularly during the

winter months when owls are active earlier during the evening. As precautionary approach, the impact assessment presented in the FEI (NR47) assumes that all 47 pairs of barn owls (i.e. the entire estimated population within the Barn Owl Field Survey Study Area) could be killed or negatively affected by operation of EWR2. Collision impacts could occur anywhere along EWR2, but are most likely at potential collision blackspots which are identified on Figure 9.19 (in Part III of the FEI (NR47)). This is clearly likely to be a substantial over-estimate of any likely impact, but at the time of publication of the FEI (NR47), no further data were available upon which to base a more accurate approach.

Mitigation Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.32 No particular mitigation measure have been identified in reducing the short-term likelihood of collision related mortality of grey herons nesting at South Lake; however, further monitoring of these birds’ flight movements around the heronry is proposed. This would be undertaken to gain a better understanding of the likely collision risks, with a view to informing mitigation that could address any impacts in the medium to long term.

Barn owls 3.8.33 The landscape planting for EWR2 does not include habitat of particular value for foraging barn owls, and

hence they would not be attracted to EWR2. Where potential collision blackspots have been identified, vegetation will be planted parallel to the railway line on both sides. The aim of the planting will be to direct barn owls across the railway at a height above that of the trains. Where not reasonably practicable, planting in such areas will be designed to reduce suitability for foraging barn owls through provision of scrub or hedgerow habitat of negligible value for foraging barn owls. No such mitigation is proposed for EWR2 in the HS2 Interface Area or the areas of Route Sections 2A, 2B or 2E within 1.5 km of HS2 as the operation of HS2 is likely to result in the loss of all barn owls in this locality regardless of the mitigation EWR2 could employ.

Residual impacts Breeding and wintering birds

3.8.34 The operation of EWR2 could give rise to collision-related mortality upon nesting grey herons at South Lake, as well as wetland birds at Blue Lagoon LNR & BNS. In each case, these residual impacts could be significant at the Local level. The operation of EWR2 would not be expected to result in a significant residual impact on any other breeding and wintering bird assemblages or species.

Barn owls 3.8.35 Considering the residual risk of barn owls being struck by trains as they cross the railway (which would

still occur notwithstanding the proposed mitigation), the operation of EWR2 could result in a negative residual effect significant at up to the County level. A strategy to provide permanent compensatory


34

artificial nest sites to increase barn owl density in the wider landscape is proposed to compensate for this residual impact.


35

3.9 Hazel Dormice 3.9.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for hazel dormouse are provided in Appendix 9.7 v2 (Part II

of the FEI (NR47)).

3.9.2 The hazel dormouse is a European Protected Species, listed under Annex IV of the European Commission Habitats Directive (1992), and Schedule 2 of the UK Habitats Regulations (1994 and 2010). Protected under Schedule 5 and 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) against killing and injury/reckless disturbance. Also a priority species for conservation designated under the Natural England Rural Communities NERC Act S (41).

3.9.3 The ‘State of Britain’s Dormice 2016’ report lists hazel dormice as ‘present’ in Oxfordshire and ‘rare’ in Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, with regularly monitored populations showing a decline in the number of adults recorded between 2011 and 2016.

Surveys undertaken 3.9.4 Surveys undertaken for hazel dormouse comprised:

a) A desk study records search extending 2km from the Scheme Area (undertaken in 2018).

b) Field surveys were undertaken between April and September 2018.

c) Scoping surveys were completed in route sections 2A, 2B, 2D and 2E.

d) A total of 32 discreet survey areas were selected for targeted presence/likely absence surveys, 2025 nesting tubes and 74 dormouse nesting boxes were located and checked at least bi-monthly.

Screening and scoping surveys 3.9.5 Screening of the scheme area and habitats surrounding the scheme area (Field Survey Study Area)

included habitat connected to the scheme area including woodland, hedgerows and scrub located up to 100m from the scheme boundary. Habitats were assessed using the professional judgment of suitably qualified persons utilising guidance on factors affecting the probability of hazel dormouse being present in a woodland following Natural England published guidance.

3.9.6 Analysis of aerial photographs was used to identify and map the extent of key areas of habitat within the scheme area that are considered potentially suitable to support hazel dormouse. A review of desk study data was used to inform this assessment. The assessment identified habitats likely to have increased probability of the presence of nesting and foraging dormice and took into account fragmented habitats and areas likely to be of sub-optimal habitat (i.e. with a decreased probability of the presence of hazel dormouse) that may be of importance in a wider landscape context. The aerial images used are predominantly from circa 2017, so given the relatively recent collection point of imagery any potential constraints due to habitat change over time are considered to be negligible.

3.9.7 For all areas screened in walkover surveys were conducted by suitably qualified ecologists, where access allowed, in order to appraise the suitability of the habitats present on the ground and to determine the need for further survey.

a) 2A - scoping surveys were completed for 18 screening areas, 5 were selected for further surveys, 450 tubes 15 boxes were deployed.

b) 2B - scoping surveys were completed for 35 screening areas, 19 were selected for further surveys, 1,050 tubes and 35 nest boxes were deployed.

c) 2C - No access to scope/survey the small number of areas screened in.

d) 2D - scoping surveys were completed for 7 screening areas, 4 were selected for further surveys, 250 tubes and 13 nest boxes were deployed.

e) 2E - scoping surveys were completed for 16 screening areas, 4 were selected for further surveys, 275 tubes and 11 nest boxes were deployed.

Presence/likely absence surveys 3.9.8 Final survey checks were completed in November 2018 and no dormice have been recorded.


36

Limitations to surveys undertaken 3.9.9 Limitations to the surveys undertaken are not considered to be significant.

3.9.10 Scoping involved on-the-ground assessments of habitat quality following screening. Some areas of land to be scoped were not accessible for scoping survey. In total, approximately 60% of those areas of land screened in were subject to a scoping assessment. Where access was not possible, it is assumed that habitats present are suitable for hazel dormice.

3.9.11 Of the areas scoped in for further survey, approximately 65% were subject to survey. A sample of habitats across each route section was surveyed to get suitable coverage. This included a sample of predominantly good quality habitats, with some lower quality habitats at a level that is assessed as providing sufficient coverage to determine presence/likely absence of this species. This level of survey coverage gave a good sample coverage spread through the Route Sections, so it is not considered a limitation to the robustness with which conclusions can be drawn.

3.9.12 Route Section 2B - Access to third party land adjacent to Route Section 2B was limited. Forty small sites screened in for field-based scoping visits were not accessible at the time of the scoping surveys. The majority of these sites lie outside the Scheme Area and will be unaffected by EWR2. These sites are connected to habitat along the railway that was subject to scoping visits. These connected habitats were either considered unsuitable for hazel dormice, or considered suitable and subject to further surveys. Therefore, taking into account the coverage of surveys within the Scheme Area of Route Section 2B, the lack of access to screening sites outside the Scheme Area is not considered a limitation to the survey or assessment of results.

3.9.13 Route Section 2C - Access was not granted to carry out initial scoping visits to the small number of areas (3) screened in as potentially providing suitable habitat for hazel dormouse within the Hazel Dormouse Field Survey Study Area. Aerial assessment indicates that the likelihood of extensive areas of suitable habitat is low and options for detailed survey within Route Section 2C limited. Detailed survey work has been undertaken along Route Section 2B, immediately west of Route Section 2C. No evidence of hazel dormouse has been found within Route Section 2B where larger amounts of suitable habitat are present.

3.9.14 The only substantial restriction to the completeness of the presence/likely absence surveys that were implemented were within Route Section 2E. Restrictions with access to survey equipment deployed in survey Area 3 (2E_019 and 2E_020) were encountered during all three survey checks completed to date. This has restricted this survey area to a total Index of Probability Score of 16 to date, which is below the score of 20 required to conclude likely absence with any degree of certainty. It is predicted that full access will be possible during the final check due to take place in November 2018, and if this is the case then the score of 20 required to show a robust survey will be surpassed.

3.9.15 HS2 interface survey data is from 2013.

Gaps in data and coverage 3.9.16 Desk study data revealed that surveys undertaken in the Route Section: HS2 Interface Area and Route

Section 2E (North of Station Road) in 2012/2013 found hazel dormouse likely to be absent from the area. During these surveys, there were two particular areas (farmland around Doddershall House and Sheephouse Wood) that were deficient due to lack of access and the assessment notes that absence of hazel dormice from these areas could not be confirmed.

3.9.17 There will be no construction impacts relating to hazel dormouse habitats within the HS2 interface and operational impacts would be negligible for this species. Hence this gap in coverage does not constitute a material limitation on the assessment.

Results 3.9.18 In addition to survey results for hazel dormouse provided for each Route Section of EWR2 in Appendix

9.7 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)), Chapter 9 (Ecology) of Volume 2i (Project-wide) summarises results for EWR2 as a whole.

a) No evidence was found in nest tubes or nest boxes to confirm the presence of hazel dormouse.

b) There is a lack of recent or historical records of this species being present within the Hazel Dormouse Background Records Study Area; there are scattered populations of hazel dormice recorded in Buckinghamshire. The ‘State of Britain’s Dormice 2016’ report lists hazel dormice ‘rare’ in Buckinghamshire, with regularly monitored populations showing a decline in the number of adults recorded between 2011 and 2016


37

c) Habitat suitability within the Hazel Dormouse Field Survey Study Area was found to be variable during scoping assessments on the ground.

d) 2A - Hazel dormice are considered likely to be absent from section 2A. All areas within 2A reached an Index of Probability Score of 20 required to conclude likely absence for hazel dormouse. This conclusion can be made with a reasonably high level of certainty when considered in conjunction with a lack of historical records for the species within 2 km of the route and the recording of variable habitat suitability during scoping assessments.

e) 2B - Hazel dormice are considered likely to be absent from section 2B. All areas within 2B reached an Index of Probability Score of 20 survey points required to conclude likely absence for hazel dormouse.

f) 2C - There is an absence of historical records for the species within 2km of the route and a likely absence concluded from surveys carried out in sections to the East and West of 2C during 2018. These factors add to a reduction in the likelihood of hazel dormouse occurring in this area that is described as a predominantly urban matrix (Bletchley).

g) 2D - All areas within Route Section 2D reached an Index of Probability Score of 20 survey points required to conclude likely absence for hazel dormouse.

h) 2E - All areas within Route Section 2E reached an Index of Probability Score of 20 survey points required to conclude likely absence for hazel dormouse.

Evaluation 3.9.19 Taking into account the known distribution of hazel dormouse and Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and

Bedfordshire, observing a lack of desk study records, patchy quality of habitats for this species within and adjacent to the scheme boundary and the lack of evidence of hazel dormouse collected in survey data to date. Taking a reasonable approach it is considered that hazel dormouse is likely absent from the Hazel Dormouse Field Survey Study Area.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts – construction 3.9.20 Hazel dormouse is likely absent from the hazel dormouse field study area and no potential or residual

impacts are identified. However, due to the length of time of EWR2 construction, it is appropriate to adopt a ‘Precautionary Method of Working’ for hazel dormouse throughout clearance of suitable habitats. Where necessary, this will include updated surveys prior to clearance. A precautionary approach will be applied in 2C where survey access was not possible although it is considered extremely unlikely that dormice will be encountered.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts – operation 3.9.21 Creation of woodland to address impacts on specific species (for example bats), to provide and improve

habitat connectivity, and to integrate EWR2 into the surrounding landscape will be of benefit to any hazel dormice that might populate the area in future. Two-staggered rows of native, species-rich hedgerows will be planted to provide nesting, foraging and commuting habitat for wildlife and existing hedgerows will be enhanced by thickening and increasing species diversity through planting. Dense stands of scrub composed of native species of local provenance will be planted in blocks along the railway embankment and cutting sides within the scheme area.


38

3.10 Water vole 3.10.1 Water voles are one of Britain’s fastest declining mammals with an estimated loss of 94% of water vole

sites since 1900. A national water vole survey in the 1990s showed a loss of 89% of water vole sites over an 8 year study period. On a local level, in the same study the Thames and Anglian regions showed declines of 49.5% and 58.8% respectively.

3.10.2 Water vole are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed as a species of principal importance under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 (as amended). In Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, any site with recent water vole records can be considered for LWS or CWS status.

3.10.3 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for water vole are provided in Appendix 9.4 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) .

Surveys undertaken 3.10.4 Surveys undertaken for water vole comprised:

a) a desk study records search extending 2km from the boundary of the Scheme Boundary (undertaken in 2015 and updated in 2017 and 2018 to account for changes in the Scheme Boundary) and extended to 5km for designated sites citing water vole as a reason for designation;

b) a habitat suitability assessment was undertaken of aquatic features that were screened in for water vole within 50m of the Scheme Boundary (the Water Vole Field Study Area), or within 50m of a suitable aquatic feature with suitable habitat connectivity between the two;

c) presence/likely absence survey for 250m up and downstream from the Scheme Boundary was undertaken on aquatic features identified to have suitable habitat.

Limitations to surveys undertaken 3.10.5 Some limitations affected water vole surveys. The more general limitations included:

a) land access restrictions from full or partial access permission not being granted, or through aquatic features being identified too late in the season for surveys to be undertaken;

b) a small number had access granted too late for the two survey visits required to be undertaken during different halves of the survey season;

c) some water courses were heavily overgrown preventing or limiting access, or restricting visibility of field signs; and

d) to ensure maximum coverage within the seasonal survey window available, some surveys were undertaken while water levels were high or shortly after heavy rain and accordingly there is a possibility some field signs may have been washed away and evidence under recorded.

Results 3.10.6 A total of 12 desk study records of water vole were obtained from the search area. Due to a lack of recent

water vole records, these included historic records from more than 10 years ago. Of these, three were from aquatic features that fell within the Water Vole Field Study Area and were subsequently surveyed: the Langford Brook, the Blue Lagoon Nature Reserve and Bear Brook.

3.10.7 The screening exercise identified 145 aquatic features within 50m of the Scheme Boundary, of which 113 were subject to further assessment; 30 were not surveyed due to access permission not being granted, or being granted too late to survey. The habitat present was considered unsuitable for water vole on 79 of the aquatic features, with suitable habitat for water vole being identified on 18 aquatic features.

3.10.8 No evidence of water vole was recorded during any of the field surveys.

3.10.9 Considering the lack of evidence of water vole and survey coverage, the varied suitability of habitats present and rarity and distribution of water vole locally and on a national scale, it is concluded that water vole are likely absent from the Water Vole Study Area for Route Sections 2A and 2B.


39

3.10.10 Considering the desk study results, a review of aerial imagery, the habitats present, the rarity and distribution of water vole locally and on a national scale, following a precautionary approach it has been assumed that populations of water vole may be present in a small number of the aquatic features which were not accessible for survey in Water Vole Study Area for Route Sections 2D and 2E, and to a lesser extent 2C.

Evaluation 3.10.11 Due to the historic decline of water vole and the species becoming scarce in both a local and national

scale, as well as the inclusion of water vole in relevant CWS and LWS selection guidelines, any populations of water vole found during pre-construction surveys would be valued at County importance. At present there is no evidence of their presence on EWR2.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction 3.10.12 Project-wide, permanent habitat loss will be minimal, with a total loss of 88m of open watercourse channel

and riparian habitat. Temporary habitat losses would also occur during channel realignments, culvert works, bridge construction, the construction, operation and decommissioning of construction compounds, works associated with flood storage areas and general works within the Scheme Area.

3.10.13 Water vole are assessed to be likely absent from the Water Vole Field Study Area within Route Sections 2A and 2B and no potential impacts are identified.

3.10.14 Route Section 2C will not result in direct impacts to aquatic habitat considered likely to support water vole. The proximity of construction activities to waterbody AF355 may result in the disturbance of water vole if they are found to be present once access is available.

3.10.15 Potential impacts to water vole (should they be found to be present) in Route Section 2D include direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and disturbance within 15 aquatic features, and disturbance only within 18 aquatic features. Construction works at all of the 33 features have potential to result in direct harm or mortality to water voles if they are subsequently found to be present.

3.10.16 Potential impacts to water vole (should they be found to be present) in Route Section 2E include direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and disturbance within 10 aquatic features, and disturbance only within 11 aquatic features. Construction works at all of the 21 features have potential to result in direct harm or mortality to water voles.

3.10.17 No interactions that may result in significant in-combination effects with HS2 are considered likely to occur.

3.10.18 A precautionary method of working for water vole will be adopted throughout construction works with potential to affect aquatic features with suitable water vole habitat. Where necessary, this will include updated surveys prior to construction.

3.10.19 The removal of habitat suitable for water vole will be minimised with only small-scale riparian loss anticipated for the majority of works associated with each watercourse.

3.10.20 If water vole populations are found to be present along a watercourse that will be directly affected by the works and avoidance is not possible, then works would be conducted under a Natural England Conservation Licence and led by a suitably experienced water vole ecologist. Such works would include specific mitigation measures, such as avoidance of areas with highest population densities, displacement or translocation of individuals, exclusion fencing, channel enhancements and implementation of a mink trapping regime to seek an overall conservation benefit for water vole.

3.10.21 Best practice measures will be applied through the CoCP to avoid or reduce the risk of disturbance, harm or mortality and habitat severance for water vole during construction works where reasonably practical. Where surveys indicate the nearby presence of water vole, additional measures would be employed on a case by case basis and employed where deemed necessary and appropriate to avoid water vole disturbance or mortality:

a) risk assessment and necessary controls or licences for ground investigations;

b) construction exclusion zones;

c) control of artificial lighting;

d) pollution prevention measures and biosecurity;


40

e) avoidance of habitat fragmentation through facilitating safe passage along water courses within inactive construction sites;

f) covering of open excavations over night or use of ramps to allow easy exit by water voles. Pipes stored on site would be capped of stored vertically to prevent entrapment;

g) any necessary dredging works will be carried out sensitively to prevent damage to burrows with material placed away from the bankside to prevent burrows being filled;

h) restoration of riparian habitat would be undertaken as soon as possible in order to maintain corridor function of the habitat;

i) where practicable bank profiles of realigned watercourses will be designed to include sections suitable for water vole burrows;

j) silencers will be fitted on noisy machinery;

k) fencing to prevent or reduce visual disturbance;

l) reduced or carefully timed working hours.

3.10.22 Loss of watercourse habitat will be compensated for in ECS A1, B7, D4 and E3 which will provide a total of 510m of either new or enhanced aquatic habitat.

3.10.23 Within Route Sections 2A and 2B, due to the likely absence of water vole, no impacts or residual effects are predicted.

3.10.24 The mitigation measures proposed to address the potential impacts on water vole in Route Sections 2C, 2D and 2E are expected to result in no significant residual effect on water vole. Although not significant, it is anticipated that the realignment works on the unnamed tributary of the Caldecotte Brook (AF349), the unnamed drain AF665 and the unnamed tributary of Elstow Brook (AF463) will result in a net gain of aquatic habitat for water vole through appropriate realignment channel design.


41

3.11 Otter 3.11.1 Otter numbers have suffered rapid declines across Britain since the 1950s, largely attributed to an historic

overall decline in water quality and the use of pesticides. The decline in otters led to them being considered absent from most counties in England. In recent years otter numbers have increased and re-colonisation of catchments has occurred: in the late 1970s otter surveys found no evidence within the Cherwell, Thames and Upper Ouse catchments and at only a single site on the Bedford Ouse catchment (all catchments traversed by EWR2), but by 2009/2010 evidence was found in between 47% and 74% of sites surveyed within all four catchments.

3.11.2 Otter are a European Protected Species and are protected under Schedules 5 and 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed as a species of principal importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (as amended). In Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, the presence of an otter breeding site or population can lead to aquatic sites and associated terrestrial habitat being considered for CWS or LWS status.

3.11.3 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for otter are provided in Appendix 9.4 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Surveys undertaken 3.11.4 Surveys undertaken for otter comprised:

a) a desk study records search extending 2km from the Scheme Boundary (undertaken in 2015 and updated in 2017 and 2018 to account for changes in the Scheme Boundary) and extended to 5km for designated sites citing otter as a reason for designation;

b) habitat suitability assessment of aquatic features that were screened in for otter within 100m of the Scheme Boundary (the Otter Field Study Area);

c) terrestrial habitat surveys of suitable otter terrestrial habitat (woodlands, large reedbeds and large areas of scrub greater than 1 ha in size) that were within 100 m of a suitable aquatic feature, and within 100 m of the Scheme Boundary; and

d) presence / likely absence survey within aquatic or terrestrial habitat deemed suitable for otter.

Limitations to surveys undertaken 3.11.5 Some limitations affected the otter surveys, which included:

e) land access restrictions from full or partial access permission not being granted, or through aquatic features being identified too late in the season for surveys to be undertaken;

f) some water courses were heavily overgrown preventing or limiting access, or restricting visibility of field signs;

g) to ensure maximum coverage within the seasonal window available, some surveys were undertaken while water levels were high or shortly after heavy rain and accordingly there is a possibility some field signs may have been washed away and evidence under recorded;

Results 3.11.6 A total of 36 desk study records of otter were obtained for the search area, with at least 1 from each of the

Route Sections. Data obtained included records of spraints, roadkill, sightings and a potential holt site.

3.11.7 The screening exercise identified 362 aquatic and terrestrial features within the Otter Field Survey Area that required survey. Of these, 81 were not surveyed due to access permission not being granted, or the feature being identified too late to survey.

3.11.8 Evidence of otter, including spraints and feeding remains were found in each Route Section. Resting sites were found in Route Sections A, B & D and one active otter holt (considered non-breeding) was recorded at a confidential location within the Scheme Boundary. Five other otter resting sites were found outside of the Scheme Area.

3.11.9 Taking into account the confirmed presence of otter within each Route Section, the geographical spread of the watercourses and water bodies and the fact that otter is a mobile and far-ranging species, it is assumed that otter may make use of all suitable habitats (including for transient use) within the Otter Field


42

Survey Study Area. Accounting for typical territory sizes of otter, it is likely that each watercourse represents only a small part of the home range of individual otters.

Evaluation 3.11.10 Although otter populations are stable and recovering in all counties within EWR2, the otter population is

valued as being of County importance due to the historic decline of the species and their inclusion in relevant CWS and LWS selection guidelines.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction 3.11.11 Over EWR2 as a whole, a total of 43 aquatic features will be affected by works and have potential to result

in impacts to otter through habitat loss, loss or disturbance to a resting site, breeding site or an individual and population fragmentation. Works at a further 21 aquatic features have potential to result in impacts to otter through disturbance. Works at all 64 aquatic features have potential to result in direct harm or mortality to individual otters, should individuals become trapped in pits / workings associated with construction activities or be diverted due to disturbance or obstruction of culverts to use alternative crossing points or routes with an increased risk of road collisions.

3.11.12 Project-wide, permanent habitat loss will be minimal, with a total loss of 88m of open watercourse channel and riparian habitat. Temporary habitat losses would also occur during channel realignments, culvert works, bridge construction, the construction, operation and decommissioning of construction compounds, works associated with flood storage areas and general works within the Scheme Area.

3.11.13 One otter resting site (or non-breeding holt) will potentially be lost during construction works in Route Section 2B. Three other resting sites are located within 100 m of the Scheme Boundary and may be disturbed during construction. It is possible that additional resting sites are present on watercourses or areas of suitable terrestrial habitat where it has not been possible to undertake surveys.

3.11.14 Temporary habitat fragmentation during construction has the potential to occur where works to existing culverts require blocking water flow temporarily or otherwise potentially restricting access.

3.11.15 Due to the best practice and mitigation measures put in place, no interactions that may result in significant in-combination effects with HS2 are considered likely to occur.

3.11.16 The removal of suitable habitat for otter will be minimised in the first instance, with only small-scale riparian habitat loss anticipated for the majority of works associated with each watercourse to enable construction.

3.11.17 Best practice measures will be employed, and applied through the CoCP to avoid or reduce the risk of disturbance, harm or risk of mortality to otter or habitat fragmentation effects of suitable habitat during construction works. The need for specific additional measures, such as temporary otter-proof fencing during any higher risk construction operations (e.g. access routes) will be assessed on a case by case basis and employed where deemed necessary and appropriate to reduce the risk of otter mortality.

3.11.18 The loss of the (non-breeding) resting site described in Route Section 2B will require a licence from Natural England. Compensation for the loss has been included in the environmental design measures, with ECS B5 providing a new artificial holt on the Claydon Brook north of the existing holt, and ECS C1 providing a new artificial holt on the Water Eaton Brook on the same watercourse as another resting site which may be disturbed during construction.

3.11.19 ECS A1 will include the installation of an artificial otter holt to compensate for the temporary loss of potentially suitable resting sites as a result of localised clearance of riparian cover.

3.11.20 Should other otter holts be identified that would be lost or have potential to be disturbed, works would be conducted under a licence from Natural England. Specific mitigation measures will be incorporated dependent on the status of the resting site, such as the installation of an artificial holt, implementation of exclusion zones or postponing of works until breeding activity has ceased.

3.11.21 Loss of watercourse habitat will be compensated for in ECS A1, B7, D4 and E3, which will provide a total of 510m of either new or enhanced aquatic habitat.

3.11.22 To prevent fragmentation, continued passage of otter through construction sites will be facilitated by careful control of site lighting, ensuring that otters can still travel through culverts at night even when water flow is temporarily blocked, and provision is made for them to get over any structures retaining water.

3.11.23 All excavations would be covered overnight, or exit ramps would be provided from exposed trenches or holes.


43

3.11.24 Considering the environmental design measures and further mitigation to be employed through the application of the CoCP, the construction of EWR2 is not expected to result in a significant residual effect on otter. Although not considered significant, EWR2 will result in a permanent net gain of suitable habitat as a result of habitat improvements in ECS A1, B7 and D4. Realignment works will also result in further habitat gains through adopting appropriate channel designs.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts – operation 3.11.25 Where suitable aquatic or terrestrial habitat is connected from one side of the existing railway

infrastructure to the other, there is an increased potential for otter to be involved in train collisions whilst commuting between habitats. This is most likely in Route Section 2B, where otters will be used to an in-operational railway. Collisions may also occur if a watercourse currently culverted beneath the railway becomes impassable in spate conditions. In such conditions, otters are more likely to commute over ground, potentially across the active railway resulting in an increased risk of otter mortality.

3.11.26 Where otter passage is deemed likely to be compromised during spate events, measures to provide safe mammal passage (either as mammal ledges on culverts or offline mammal passes) have been incorporated in the environmental design measures detailed in Chapter 2, Volume 2i of the ES (NR16). Where appropriate, permanent otter-proof fencing would be installed to encourage the use of safe crossing features.

3.11.27 Considering the environmental design measures included, further operational impacts to otter are not expected and no further mitigation is proposed.


44

3.12 Bats 3.12.1 Survey methodologies, limitations and results for bats are provided in Appendix 9.6 v2 (in Part II of the FEI

(NR47)).

Surveys undertaken 3.12.2 Surveys undertaken for bats comprised:

a) A desk study records search extending 10km form the Scheme (undertaken in November 2017 and updated in April 2018);

b) Preliminary Bat Roost Assessments (PBRAs) of buildings, structures and trees on and within 100m of the Scheme (undertaken in 2015, 2017 and 2018);

c) Aerial tree climbing inspections of trees assessed during PBRAs as having moderate or high potential for bats (undertaken in 2015, 2017 and 2018);

d) Emergence/re-entry surveys of trees assessed during PBRAs as having moderate or high potential for bats, and structures and buildings assessed as having low, moderate or high potential for bats (undertaken in 2015, 2017 and 2018);

e) Hibernation surveys of structures, buildings and trees assessed during PBRAs as having potential to support hibernating bats (undertaken in 2018);

f) Activity transect surveys in 18 locations along the route of the Scheme and 12 other locations close to the route of the Scheme (undertaken between one and four times in 2018);

g) Static detector surveys undertaken in 27 locations in 2015 (on between one and three occasions) and in 60 locations in 2018 (on between one and five occasions) along the route of the Scheme;

h) Crossing point surveys undertaken in 31 locations in 2018 (on between one and four occasions) along the route of the Scheme;

i) Bat trapping and radio-tracking undertaken in 2016, 2017 and 2018, with trapping locations on the route of the Scheme in 2016 and 2018, and trapping at identified maternity roosts close to the Scheme in 2017. Radio-tracking sought to identify roost sites (subsequently subject to a PBRA and emergence/re-entry surveys as appropriate) and locations of tagged bats at intervals during the night to identify commuting and foraging areas.

Limitations to surveys undertaken 3.12.3 Some limitations affected several or all bat survey methods, while others were specific to a particular bat

survey method. The more general limitations included:

a) land access restrictions (including restricted access due to flooding or other hazards);

b) limited access/possessions for sections of EWR2 with live lines (including gaining possessions too late for surveys to be resourced as intended);

c) seasonal variation in bat behaviour affecting bat activity recorded during spring/autumn surveys;

d) adverse weather conditions;

e) equipment failure (including bat detectors during some static and transect surveys, thermal imaging cameras during some crossing point surveys, and receiver antennae during radio-tracking surveys);

f) resourcing of sufficient surveyors to undertake the surveys required.

3.12.4 Limitations specific to particular bat survey methods included prohibition of tree climbing of unsafe trees and those close to live lines on safety grounds, lack of internal access to buildings during PBRAs, and lack of visibility during emergence/re-entry surveys in areas with closed canopy woodland.

Gaps in data and coverage 3.12.5 Emergence/re-entry and hibernation surveys of potential roost structures, buildings and trees within the

Scheme boundary and up to 100m of it have not all been completed. The majority of structures, buildings and trees have been subject to a PBRA assessment (except where listed in the limitations section of


45

Appendix 9.6 v2 in Part II of the FEI (NR47)), and where further surveys have not been completed a precautionary assessment of the likely value of those features has been made based on the PBRA survey results. This approach is likely to over-estimate the number of roosts affected by EWR2, and the status of the roosts present (though on some Route Sections of EWR2 the presence of Annex II species means there is potential for unidentified roosts of higher conservation importance to be present).

3.12.6 Transects and static detector surveys were not completed at all locations in all months (range between one and five of the six survey months for both survey methods). For transect surveys, the survey months most often omitted were in April and September. For static detector surveys, sampling effort in April was comparable to the summer months, but surveys in September were often omitted. Consequently there is potential that transitional activity patterns of bats moving between summer and winter roosts may have been overlooked during these surveys, particularly in the autumn when fewer surveys of either type took place.

3.12.7 For crossing point surveys, where the aim was to survey four times (in April/May, June/July and August/September, the latter including both a dusk and dawn survey), many locations were surveyed on four occasions but there were fewer surveys in April/May (and more in October) than originally proposed. Consequently there is potential for different foraging behaviours in spring on and adjacent to EWR2 to have been under-recorded and an increased chance of recording seasonal commuting behaviour.

Results Species present

3.12.8 In addition to survey results for bats provided for each Route Section of EWR2 in Appendix 9.6 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

3.12.9 Taken together, these surveys identified the presence of 13 bat species on or close to EWR2: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler’s, serotine, brown long-eared, barbastelle, Natterer’s, Daubenton’s, whiskered, Brandt’s and Bechstein’s bats. The majority of these species are present throughout EWR2, with the exception of Bechstein’s bat which has not been recorded in Route Sections 2C or 2D (and only recorded in the western part of 2B); and barbastelle which has not been recorded in Route Section 2C. Some Myotis species (other than Bechstein’s bat) may also be rare or absent from Route Section 2C given its more urban habitats present, although Daubenton’s bat has been recorded in this section.

Roosts 3.12.10 There are 15 known moderate or high significance roosts within the Scheme Area and up to 100m from it.

Of these, one building (Swanbourne Station, a maternity roost in Route Section 2B for brown long-eared, common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats, and day roost for Myotis bats) is within the Scheme Area and would be demolished as part of the proposed project. Four of these roosts are trees on the boundary of the Scheme Area, comprising: a possible maternity roost for Brandt’s bats (Route Section 2A); a day roost for Myotis bats of unconfirmed species; a maternity roost for Daubenton’s bats (Route Section 2B); and a day roost for one or more barbastelle bats.

3.12.11 Of the moderate or high significance roosts outside the Scheme Area but within 100m of it, two are barbastelle day roosts, the others are maternity roosts for common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared, Natterer’s, Daubenton’s and Brandt’s bats. There are 53 known roosts in trees, buildings and structures of low or unknown significance within the Scheme Area and up to 100m from it.

Commuting and foraging activity 3.12.12 Bat activity revealed by both transect and static detector surveys was dominated by common pipistrelle,

with lower levels of activity for soprano pipistrelle and Myotis species (not usually identified to species for these surveys due to the similarity of their echolocation calls), and lower activity levels still for all other species recorded. Some individual transects or static detector locations had higher levels of activity than typical across EWR2 as a whole; the species responsible in these instances included noctule, Leisler’s, Myotis species and, at one location (static detector 37), barbastelle. The latter was close to Salden Wood, in which barbastelle roosts have been identified and radio-tracked barbastelle bats trapped. Although presence of a maternity colony in Salden Wood has not been confirmed, based on a reasonable precautionary approach it is considered that there is potential for one to be present. In addition, the widespread low levels of barbastelle activity recorded throughout Route Section 2B during static surveys could indicate metapopulation connectivity along EWR2 between woodlands close to the HS2 Interface


46

Area (which are themselves reasonably well connected to the Bernwood area by a series of small woodlands each separated by no more than 2km) and Salden Wood and other nearby woodlands.

Activity across EWR2 3.12.13 Bat activity during crossing point surveys was also dominated by common pipistrelle at the majority of

locations, as were observed crossings of EWR2. In Route Section 2A there were six species/species groups for which the majority of observed crossings were at or below 5m (the height below which bats may be at risk of collision with trains): common and soprano pipistrelle, pipistrelle sp., brown long-eared, Myotis species and Leisler’s bats. Of these, Myotis species had the highest percentage of crossings at risk, with 80% at or below 5m. In Route Section 2B there were two species/species groups for which the majority of observed crossings were at or below 5m: Myotis species and barbastelle, though the number of observations of the latter was very low (two passes observed, of which one was below 5m). In Route Section 2C there were two species/species groups for which the majority of observed crossings were at or below 5m: common pipistrelle and noctule, though the number of observations of the latter was very low (one pass observed, which was below 5m). In Route Section 2D there were four species/species groups for which the majority of passes observed at crossing points were at or below 5 m: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared and barbastelle. However, for all except common pipistrelle there were very few observations made. In Route Section 2E there were three species/species groups for which the majority of observed passes were below 5m: common pipistrelle, Myotis species and brown long-eared. There were no crossing point observations of barbastelles crossing in 2E, but small numbers of barbastelle passes recorded both north and south of Station Road.

Evaluation 3.12.14 For the purposes of nature conservation evaluation, the ‘Bats’ ecological feature was divided into six sub-

features:

a) The Bechstein’s bat population associated with Grendon and Doddershall Woods, Sheephouse Wood, Finemere Wood, Ham Home Wood and Ham Green Wood, individuals from which are now known from surveys in 2018 to travel as far as Route Sections 2A and 2B of EWR2, valued as being of National importance;

b) Barbastelle bats, now known to be present along most of EWR2 with a concentration of activity observed close at Salden Wood in Route Section 2B, valued as being of Regional importance;

c) The assemblage of Myotis species associated with Sheephouse Wood, Finemere Wood and Decoypond Wood and existing railway line, valued as being of Regional importance;

d) Populations of serotine, noctule and Leisler’s bat associated with Calvert Jubilee Nature Reserve LWS and the existing railway corridor between Finemere fishing lake and Sheephouse Wood, valued as being of County importance;

e) Populations of bats associated with Route Sections 2A, 2B, 2D and 2E, valued as being of Regional importance; and

f) Populations of bats associated with Route Section 2C, valued as being of County importance.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts - construction 3.12.15 Construction impacts on bats would comprise loss of and modification to roosts, disturbance to bats,

habitat fragmentation and loss of foraging habitat.

3.12.16 Loss of roosts would occur in structures and buildings to be demolished and trees to be felled. Modification of roosts would occur in structures and buildings to be repaired or altered, and both loss and modification of roosts could result in killing and injury to bats present in these roosts at the time works took place. For roosts of moderate and high conservation importance, these impacts could negatively affect the conservation status of the species concerned.

3.12.17 Disturbance to bats could occur through increased lighting, noise levels, dust and vibration. Increased light levels could delay emergence from roosts and restrict bats’ access to commuting routes and foraging areas, particularly for light-averse species such as brown long-eared and Myotis bats. Increased noise levels at night could reduce foraging efficiency of gleaning species, again such as brown long-eared or Myotis bats. Vibration may affect bats in their roosts, particularly on Route Section 2B of EWR2.

3.12.18 Vegetation clearance for construction of EWR2 would result in the loss of habitat corridors used by commuting and foraging bats along, and across, EWR2. Alternative flight lines in Route Section 2A and


47

2B are limited to occasional parallel hedgerows and watercourses within the adjacent habitats. Based on the habitat preferences of the bat species known to be present or likely to be present, the removal of vegetation is most likely to affect brown long-eared, Myotis, and barbastelle bats as these are most reliant on linear vegetated features for commuting between roosts and foraging areas. Once vegetation has been removed, the railway during construction is likely to constitute a barrier to north to south movement for these species. Habitat loss will be short to medium-term (<10 years), as following completion of the earthworks they will be seeded with a grassland mix and planted with scrub which will establish to provide suitable bat foraging and commuting habitat.

3.12.19 Where brown long-eared, Myotis and barbastelle bats are roosting close to the line (within 100 m) the existing railway line habitats are likely to form a significant proportion of each roost’s Core Sustenance Zone and form key commuting routes to bats within the roosts. Loss of the railway corridor could lead to the loss or break-up of such roosts if bats are no longer able to reliably reach their favoured foraging grounds, mating sites or hibernation roosts.

3.12.20 Similar impacts to bats in Route Section 2C and 2D are not anticipated to occur. Route Section 2C is a short section of operational track in urban Bletchley where significant roosts (maternity or hibernation) of the above species are not likely to be present within close proximity to the railway line. The works in Route Section 2D are small in scale and do not result in large linear lengths of vegetation being removed.

3.12.21 In Route Section 2E vegetation will be retained on one side of the track, which will retain a linear commuting route for bats, and consequently the significance of impacts in this section are likely to be less than those in Route Section 2A and 2B.

3.12.22 In the absence of mitigation these impacts are predicted to have a negative effect significant at up to a Regional scale.

3.12.23 Mitigation to address loss and modification of roosts will comprise retaining roosts in situ where this is possible, and where it is not by providing alternative roosting opportunities specific to the species and roost statuses affected. A purpose-built bat house will be provided to compensate for the demolition of Swanbourne Station House and loss of maternity roosts it supports.

3.12.24 Sensitive working practices and timings would be employed to minimise impacts and all works affecting roosts would be carried out under licence from Natural England. For trees and structures, inspections would be carried out prior to felling or demolition/modification, with any bats present being relocated, if possible, and exclusion devices fitted if bats cannot be relocated or if it is not possible to confirm the absence of bats.

3.12.25 Where practicable to do so, dependent upon the proximity to one of the ECS or landowner agreements, tree roost features would be retained by strapping the felled section to a retained mature tree. Additional roosting opportunities would be provided in bat boxes.

3.12.26 Disturbance to bats would where possible be mitigated through timing of works, and where disturbance is unavoidable would be carried out under licence from Natural England, with alternative roosting locations provided as described above.

3.12.27 Habitat loss and fragmentation impacts would be mitigated by:

a) retaining and protecting woodland, scrub and hedgerows adjacent to the Scheme Boundary;

b) new planting within the Scheme Boundary where no construction works are occurring. The new planting will take place prior to vegetation being removed on the opposite side of the railway corridor so that there is no period when vegetation is absent from both sides of the corridor. New planting will include standards to provide as mature as vegetation as practicable given the constraints of availability and difficulties of establishing newly planted mature vegetation;

c) Where it is not practicable to plant new linear habitats within the Scheme Area where construction is taking place, alternative flight lines have been identified and included in the Scheme Boundary to allow enhancements to take place. These enhancements will include new planting to close gaps in existing hedgerows and managing them for the benefit of bats;

d) The environmental design measures (inclusive of the replanting of the embankments and the creation of the ECS) will provide bats with a total of 221.5 ha of suitable foraging habitat which will compensate for the loss of habitats within the Scheme Boundary.

3.12.28 Surveys in 2018 indicate that it is likely that vegetation on Route Sections 2A and 2B of EWR2 are likely to represent a critical commuting and foraging resource for bats roosting close to it, and consequently the removal of vegetation on these Route Sections is considered licensable.


48

3.12.29 Considering the environmental design measures and further mitigation and compensation detailed above, the construction of EWR2 is not expected to result in a significant effect on bats.

Impacts, mitigation and residual impacts – operation 3.12.30 Predicted operational impacts on bats comprise: killing or injury of bats through collision with trains;

disturbance through light, noise and vibration, particularly in Route Section 2B where the line is not currently operational; and habitat fragmentation due to the increased width of the gap between vegetation on each side of EWR2, even when planting matures.

3.12.31 As trains will be running during the dusk emergence period for bats, when most insect food tends to be available, and before dawn in the spring and autumn, operation of EWR2 has the potential to result in killing of bats. However, the frequency of trains will be significantly less than for major roads at the same times of day. The bat species most at risk of collisions (through its frequency and height of crossing) is common pipistrelle and, to a lesser extent, soprano pipistrelle, which are the species likely to be most resilient to incidental mortality through collision risk, due to be the most common species present on EWR2. Rarer species tended to cross less frequently, and many tended to cross at a height where they would not be at risk of collision. However, Myotis species on some sections, which potentially includes crossings by Bechstein’s bats, could be at risk of mortality impacts at a population level due to their smaller populations and preferred crossing height.

3.12.32 Disturbance of bats is most likely to occur in Route Section 2B, as this is not currently in operation. Disturbance events resulting from passing trains will be temporary, localised and of short duration. Roosting bats in the vicinity of EWR2 may be disturbed by increases in noise and/or vibration, particularly if roosting in bridges along the railway line. However, bats are known to roost in busy motorway bridges and some bridges along EWR2 are already subject to disturbance from vehicular movement. Similarly, some of the identified roosts on and close to EWR2 are close to existing sources of disturbance such as roads.

3.12.33 The operational Project may also disturb foraging and commuting bats and reduce bat activity on and close to EWR2. However, the short duration and infrequency of train passes is, again, unlikely to result in a significant effect.

3.12.34 Due to the low level of proposed train movements during the operational phase this Project, and to the fact that replacement planting along the railway line and within the ECS will have been allowed time to establish, habitat fragmentation is unlikely to affect bats during the operational Phase.

3.12.35 At crossing points and other locations identified by surveys where bats are at risk of collision mortality, and where reasonably practicable, fast growing tall trees and shrubs will be provided. These will be planted or translocated, where materials are locally available, on both sides of the railway line in short lengths of no more than 5m, to encourage bats to cross at a safe height. Vegetation within these areas will be maintained at a height of at least 5m over the track to allow clearance over passing trains, which are up to 4.5 m high.

3.12.36 In the absence of mitigation, the operation of EWR2 is expected to result in a negative effect on Myotis bats, potentially including Bechstein’s bats, through incidental mortality caused by collisions with trains, which would be significant at a Local scale. The efficacy of the proposed mitigation to address this adverse effect is unproven due to a lack of scientific studies on the impacts of railways on bats. It is anticipated that the mitigation planting would have some success in physically deterring bats from crossing the railway and therefore reducing their risk of collision, and the relatively low . It cannot be stated with certainty that it would avoid all collisions but I consider that the proposed mitigation would, over time, reduce the significance of the adverse effect to an incidental level.

3.12.37 Mortality of bats other than Myotis species is considered unlikely to be significant in population terms, and therefore no residual impacts are predicted for other bats.


49

3.13 Badgers 3.13.1 Badgers were not identified as an Important Ecological Feature and hence were not included in the

Environmental Statement. However, badgers receive strict legal protection for welfare reasons and their protection will form a constraint on the construction of EWR2. A comprehensive badger sett survey was therefore undertaken following good practice guidance and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) competencies for undertaking badger surveys.

3.13.2 Updated badger surveys across route section 2A and 2B were carried out in 2017 along both the Network Rail Managed Infrastructure (NRMI) and in adjacent third-party land where access agreed. These surveys were updated again (within the NRMI only) in 2018 along section 2A in January 2018 and along section 2B in February 2018 by EWR Alliance. Bait marking surveys in route sections 2A and 2B were carried out in September-October 2017 and April 2018 to coincide with lower vegetation levels and peaks in badger territorial marking activity. Each group of setts (including the main sett) were baited with different coloured pellets. Surveyors systematically and thoroughly searched the areas within the Network Rail Managed Infrastructure (NRMI) and within surrounding third party land for setts and latrines, which were then recorded and mapped in the field.

Section 2A 3.13.3 A total of 41 badger setts were identified within the red-line boundary in section 2A, comprising 10 main

setts, five annexe setts, five subsidiary setts and 21 outlier setts. There were two further outlier setts within 50m of the red line boundary.

3.13.4 Territory analysis following the bait marking surveys found a total of 10 separate badger territories along route section 2A, with all 10 associated main setts located within the Scheme boundary.

Section 2B 3.13.5 The bait marking surveys found a total of 6 separate badger territories along the route section 2B within

the survey area between Steeple Claydon and Winslow, with all 6 associated main setts located within the Scheme boundary.

3.13.6 Update badger surveys within the existing NRMI boundary of the route section 2B were then carried out in February 2018. A total of 66 badger setts were identified within the red-line boundary between 2017 and 2018, comprising 13 main setts, three annexe setts, six subsidiary setts and 44 outlier setts. There were a further six outlier setts within 50m of the red line boundary.

Route Sections 2C, 2D, and 2E In route section 2C one potential outlier sett was recorded as an incidental record within a compound site adjacent to the rail line. In route section 2D one outlier sett was recorded. In route section 2E (south of Station Road, Quainton) a total of seven badger setts were recorded within the Scheme boundary, comprising one main sett, two subsidiary setts and four outlier setts.

Further survey 3.13.7 The information that has been obtained during previous surveys reflects the level of badger activity within

the survey area at the time of survey. Badgers are highly mobile species with changing patterns of behaviour at varying times of the year and local populations may fluctuate over time. Therefore, potential exists for badgers to relocate at any time throughout all sections of EWR2.

3.13.8 Throughout 2019 further surveys for badger will be carried out along route sections 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E. Bait marking will also be carried out along the eastern end of 2B which was not included in the previous study. These surveys will update the baseline information, inform licence method statements and ensure that mitigation proposals remain appropriate.

Mitigation 3.13.9 All main setts that will be lost as part of EWR2 will be replaced on a one-for-one basis by artificial setts.

Where access allows, for large territories an extra artificial sett may be installed to aid the closure process, reducing the likelihood of badgers trying to return to the embankments/cuttings.


50

3.13.10 The artificial setts will be created and in place prior to closure of the associated existing main sett, with enough time to ensure the badgers discover and are able to use the new sett. In order to increase the chances of uptake by badgers and long-term occupation the artificial sett will be positioned as close to the existing main sett as practicable (ideally within 150 m) within the known territory of the badger social group for which it is intended. The sett construction will incorporate appropriate landscaping, good connectivity to foraging, access to neighbouring social groups and will be located in areas not subject to construction activity. Local vegetation clearance may be required in order to install the artificial sett. Any vegetation will be checked for any other protected species by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) prior to removal.

3.13.11 Artificial setts will be monitored regularly following their installation to ensure badgers have found the setts. Following closure of the existing main setts the artificial setts will be monitored quarterly throughout construction.

3.13.12 Suitable locations have been determined for the construction of some of the artificial setts along route sections 2A and 2B. The process for installing artificial setts has three options:

1. Early Access Agreements for Third Party Land 3.13.13 Along route section 2A and section 2B a number of artificial setts will be created within EWR2’s advanced

Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS). The ECS are areas of land within the Scheme boundary and will be adjacent to the rail permanent alignment in which a variety of ecological mitigation and compensation for protected species are being installed prior to construction. There are currently three sites along route sections 2A and 2B available to install artificial setts and these three sites will provide mitigation for 5 badger territories.

3.13.14 There are a further two sites along route section 2A and 2B which have been purchased in order to provide artificial badger setts. One of these sites is included within the redline boundary. These sites are owned by Network Rail and once EWR2 is fully constructed and operational these sites will either be kept permanently within Networks Rail’s ownership or will be handed over (with legal conditions relating to the retention of features such as badger setts) to an environmental stakeholder to manage.

3.13.15 Further negotiation opportunities with third party landowners are being pursued to provide alternative locations for artificial setts away from EWR2. In these cases, a lease agreement will be arranged in which access is granted for a 12 month period for the construction and subsequent monitoring of artificial setts. These agreements state that an artificial sett will be constructed on the land and, once occupied, badgers and their setts are legally protected under the Protection of Badger Act 1992 (as amended)..

2. Land for Artificial Setts Incorporated into the Red-Line Construction Boundary

3.13.16 Negotiations with private land-owners/farmers along the EWR Project for the purpose of providing artificial badger setts have proven difficult due to the public objection to badgers in the local area. A number of cattle farms along EWR2 have suffered due to bovine tuberculosis (TB) outbreaks in recent years and landowners are often not receptive to having badgers relocated within their land. In cases where there are no opportunities to relocate a main sett outside the scheme boundary, some provision has been made within the red line construction boundary. In these areas, access rights to the land will be granted as part of the TWAO after September 2019. Artificial setts will be constructed in these locations whilst the existing main setts are retained in an ecological exclusion zone (exact size of exclusion zone will be sett specific). Once EWR2 is fully constructed and operational these sites will either be kept permanently within Networks Rail’s ownership or will be given back to the landowner to manage on their agreement, complying with a legal covenant to retain and manage all of the features within that site.

3. Artificial Setts Incorporated into EWR2 Earthworks 3.13.17 In areas where there is no provision for artificial setts within the red line boundary (for example where

setts have been recorded after the TWAO boundary was finalised) and negotiations with land owners has been unsuccessful, it is possible to incorporate artificial setts into EWR2 earthworks during construction. The existing main setts will be retained within an ecological exclusion zone whilst earthworks are progressing on the opposite embankment (incorporating an artificial sett). Once the earthworks and artificial sett construction is complete on the opposite embankment, the badgers have found the artificial sett and a licence has been granted, the existing sett will then be closed in accordance with that licence. The artificial sett will then be within a new ecological exclusion zone whilst the old main sett is destroyed and construction works continue around that location.


51

3.13.18 There are no known main setts in route sections 2C or 2D therefore no mitigation will be implemented in these sections unless a main sett is discovered during further pre-construction surveys. There is one main sett in section 2E (south of Station Road Quainton) which requires mitigation and will likely be incorporated into the scheme boundary due to the lack of available space outside the Scheme footprint (which in this location is adjacent to the HS2 footprint). Closure of setts which are in use will be carried out in accordance with a Natural England badger licence. Sett closures will take place between 1 July to 30 November (outside the badger breeding season) unless detailed otherwise in the licence (and only if there is no alternative). Exclusion methods will include one-way gates and wire fencing mesh. Subsequent monitoring of setts will be undertaken throughout the exclusion period (minimum 21 days) and destruction of setts will be detailed in the licences.

3.13.19 To reduce the risk of unexpected additional setts appearing within EWR2 due to badgers digging back into the embankments during the sett closures, the existing setts will be left in situ for as long as possible before closure.

3.13.20 Once all badgers have left the sett under closure the sett will be destroyed. The Alliance preferred method of sett destruction is jet grouting instead of the standard method of excavating each sett in full. Because the setts will not be excavated gradually in the usual method to ensure badgers have fully vacated the sett, each sett will undergo intensive monitoring during the 21-day closure, prior to sett destruction to ensure all badgers have vacated the sett, as per the method outlined above. Camera traps will be stationed around each sett to monitor activity at the entrances, as well as frequent monitoring by an ecologist.

3.13.21 The method of jet grouting involves a concrete injection vehicle which will line up adjacent to the sett areas where the injection hose will be run out and placed into the tunnel entrance. After which a mini mix concrete lorry will back up to the injection vehicle receiver and discharge the concrete into the injection vehicle where the concrete will be injected into the sett tunnel matrix. Once the first tunnel appears full the hose will be moved into the next tunnel entrance and method repeated until all entranced have been fully grouted. Jet grouting removes the need to excavate a deep hole in the middle of the site which could otherwise result in destabilisation of the existing embankments or cutting slopes. Numerous excavations of this sort along the rail line would pose a serious health and safety risk to staff working within the site in these locations. Jet grouting also removes the need to move the excavated material to another location on site for treatment and re-use and minimises the substantial primary sourced stone that would be needed in this area to rebuild the embankment. Reducing excavation allows the main access along the corridor to be maintained throughout the works allowing other activities to continue whilst also reducing the number of vehicles associated with the activity.

3.13.22 Measures to control the disturbance of retained setts within 30 m of the Scheme Boundary will be implemented. This will include regular monitoring by ecologists and remote cameras on active setts located nearby construction.

3.13.23 Measures to maintain badger welfare will be followed during construction including maintaining fencing to exclude badgers from working areas, capping of pipes to prevent badger entering, covering of open excavations at the end of a shift (or providing sloped sides/exit ramps from excavations) and regular checks for trapped badgers at the start of a shift.

3.13.24 The above measures will, in my opinion, ensure that the Scheme will be able to comply with the Protection of Badger Act (1992).


52

3.14 Ecological Compensation Package 3.14.1 The loss of habitats as a result of Project construction will be compensated by the creation of a series of

Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS). These are designed to replace habitats lost and provide alternative habitats for species affected by EWR2. They are designed to act as “stepping stones” along the route and to promote East to West connectivity for biodiversity.

3.14.2 The locations of the ECS are shown in Figure 9.24 in Part III of the FEI (NR47). The following section details the reason why each ECS was selected, the existing habitats and proposed compensatory habitats. The sites are not numbered sequentially as previous candidate sites have been deleted as surveys were undertaken to establish the most suitable sites. Further details of the rationale for, and proposed management of each ECS are provided in Technical Appendix 9.13 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)).

Route Section 2A A1 Land East of Charbridge Lane, Bicester Ecological Compensation Site: A1

Area: 1.4 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, otters, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland Proposed habitats to be gained: Mixed deciduous broadleaved woodland, watercourse enhancements (back water and marginal planting), artificial otter holt

A3 Land North of Bicester Road, Launton Ecological Compensation Site: A3

Area: 1.3 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, terrestrial habitats, birds, bats, terrestrial invertebrates, aquatic habitat and species, badgers

Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), scrub

A4 Land North of Station Road, Launton Ecological Compensation Site: A4

Area: 8.3 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, terrestrial habitats, bats, reptiles, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, aquatic habitat and species, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland (pasture)


53

Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), scrub, hibernacula, log piles

A5 Land East of Bicester Road, Marsh Gibbon Ecological Compensation Site: A5

Area: 8.9 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, terrestrial habitats, bats, reptiles, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, aquatic habitat and species, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), scrub, hibernacula, log piles

A6 Land West of Station Road, Poundon Ecological Compensation Site: A6

Area: 8.4 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Reptiles, badgers, terrestrial habitats, bats, birds, terrestrial invertebrates Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land and improved grassland

Proposed habitats to be gained: Lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), scrub, hibernacula, log piles, reptile embankments

A7 Land West of Main Street, Charndon Ecological Compensation Site: A7

Area: 13.8 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, designated sites, reptiles, badgers, terrestrial habitats, bats, birds, terrestrial invertebrates Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land

Proposed habitats to be gained: Lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), scrub, hibernacula, log piles, reptile embankments


54

Route Section 2B B2 Land East of Queen Catherine Road, Steeple Claydon Ecological Compensation Site: B2

Area: 1.9 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Reptiles, badgers, terrestrial habitats, bats, birds, terrestrial invertebrates Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland with scattered scrub

Proposed habitats to be gained: Hedgerow (HPI), scrub, hibernacula, log piles, reptile embankments

B5 Land North of Furzen Farm, Verney Junction Ecological Compensation Site: B5

Area: 0.2 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Otter Existing habitats to be lost: Woodland (nettle understorey only) Proposed habitats to be gained: Artificial otter holt B7 Land north of Verney Road, Verney Junction Ecological Compensation Site: B7

Area: 3.4 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, designated sites, terrestrial habitats, reptiles, bats, aquatic habitat and species, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland and marshy grassland (pasture)

Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and a ditch with marginal planting (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), reptile embankment, marshy grassland enhancement, hibernacula, log piles B9 Land West of Furze Lane, Winslow Ecological Compensation Site: B9

Area: 1.1 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, otters, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland and tall ruderal vegetation

Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), open mosaic habitat (HPI), scrub, reptile embankments, hibernacula, log piles


55

B10 Land East of Great Horwood Road, Winslow Ecological Compensation Site: B10

Area: 1.8 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, designated sites, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, otters, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland (pasture) Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI) lowland meadow (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), open mosaic habitat (HPI), scrub, reptile embankments, hibernacula, log piles B13 Land East of Winslow Road, Winslow Ecological Compensation Site: B13

Area: 1.5 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, terrestrial habitats, reptiles, bats, aquatic habitat and species, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, badgers

Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland (pasture) Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), reptile embankment, hibernacula, log piles B14 Land West of Mursley Road, Little Horwood Ecological Compensation Site: B14

Area: 6.3 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Bats, designates sites, terrestrial habitats, reptiles, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland (pasture) Proposed habitats to be gained: Calcareous grassland (turves from Railway Bank by Salden Wood LWS), lowland meadow (HPI), lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), open mosaic habitat (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), reptile embankment, hibernacula, log piles, bat house B17 Land South East of Swan’s Way, Little Horwood Ecological Compensation Site: B17

Area: 2.4 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats, badgers

Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land


56

Proposed habitats to be gained: Lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI) and lowland meadow (HPI)

B20 Land North of Salden Lane, Mursley Ecological Compensation Site: B20

Area: 8.5 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Designated sites, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats, badgers

Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land

Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), Lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), reptile embankments B23 Land West of Whaddon Road, Newton Longville Ecological Compensation Site: B23

Area: 3.9 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Designated sites, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats, badgers

Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland (pasture)

Proposed habitats to be gained: Lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), species-rich grassland turves (translocated from Railway Sidings East of Salden Wood LWS) and reptile embankments B26 Land West of Sandhill Road, Littleworth Ecological Compensation Site: B26

Area: 4.8 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Reptiles, terrestrial habitats, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats, badgers Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland (pasture) Proposed habitats to be gained: Lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), open mosaic habitat (HPI), scrub, reptile embankments, hibernacula, log piles

Route Section 2C C1 Land East of Selbourne Avenue, Bletchley Ecological Compensation Site: C1

Area: 8.1 ha


57

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, terrestrial habitats, designated sites, reptiles, bats, aquatic habitat and species, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, badgers, otters Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land

Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), hedgerows (HPI), open mosaic habitat (HPI) scrub, reptile embankment, hibernacula, log piles

Route Section 2D

D1 Land West of Berry Lane, Aspley Guise Ecological Compensation Site: D1

Area: 0.6 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, bats, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland (pasture) Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), scrub, bat house

D2 Land West of Bedford Road, Church End Ecological Compensation Site: D2

Area: 7.2 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Great crested newts, reptiles, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitat and species, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), lowland meadow (HPI), scrub, reptile embankments, hibernacula, log piles

D3 Land East of Marston Road, Lidlington Ecological Compensation Site: D3

Area: 0.4 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Bats, aquatic habitats and species, terrestrial habitats, birds, terrestrial invertebrates Existing habitats to be lost: Poor semi-improved grassland and mixed plantation woodland


58

Proposed habitats to be gained: Ponds and marginal planting (HPI), lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), scrub, bat house D4 Land West of Manor Road, Bedford Ecological Compensation Site: D4

Area: 1.3 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Bats, aquatic habitats and species, terrestrial habitats, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, otter, water vole Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land Proposed habitats to be gained: Watercourse enhancement, lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), bat house

Route Section 2E E3 Land South of Station Road, Quainton Ecological Compensation Site: E3

Area: 9.9 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Designated sites, terrestrial habitats, great crested newts, aquatic habitats and species (including water vole), reptiles, birds, bats, terrestrial invertebrates Existing habitats to be lost: Improved grassland

Proposed habitats to be gained: Species-rich grassland turves (from Waddesdon Station Complex LWS, Waddesdon Common LWS and Sunny Hill Farm Pastures LWS), lowland meadow (HPI), lowland mixed deciduous woodland (HPI), ponds and marginal planting (HPI), scrub, reptile embankments, hibernacula and log piles E4 Land West of Crispin Street, Quarrendon Ecological Compensation Site: E4

Area: 6.2 ha

Specific IEFs for compensation: Birds, reptiles, terrestrial habitats, bats, terrestrial invertebrates Existing habitats to be lost: Arable land and improved grassland

Proposed habitats to be gained: Hedgerows (HPI), arable field margins - semi-improved grassland (HPI), scrapes, hibernacula, log piles


59

3.15 Biodiversity accounting and approach to net gain 3.15.1 Network Rail’s position on net gain is set out in our Statement of Case, and is as follows. The focus of the

principles that planning authorities should apply is upon the avoidance of significant harm to biodiversity by a development and the Order Scheme has been prepared with that principle in mind. The principles do not include any requirement that individual planning applications are currently required to deliver a net gain in biodiversity.

3.15.2 An Order made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 may include powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for mitigation measures required for EWR2, but not for land solely to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. For this reason, Network Rail is not able to use CPO rights that would allow EWR2 to deliver a net gain in “biodiversity units” according to any standard metrics.

3.15.3 EWR2 is currently delivering net gain for individual species / groups wherever possible through the development of ECS. For example, the mitigation proposed would represent a net gain in aquatic and terrestrial habitat for great crested newts.

3.15.4 In accordance with Government’s 25 year plan, the DfT and East West Rail Company have confirmed their aspiration for EWR2 to achieve a net positive gain. The powers sought under the Order are those required to deliver the Order Scheme and measures that are required to mitigate the associated environmental effects. Network Rail will, however, support the DfT and East West Rail Company in working with landowners and other stakeholders to explore opportunities to provide Net Gain at a local (i.e. not necessarily a Project-wide) level. The delivery of any such Net Gains would be in addition to the mitigation measures reported in the ES (NR16) and secured by the Order.

3.15.5 The following section of my evidence reports the baseline biodiversity calculations for the whole project and for each route section using Network Rail’s Biodiversity Accounting metric. Several such metrics are available and none are completely accurate, but serve as a proxy for understanding impacts on biodiversity. They do, however, only consider habitats and not impacts on notable species, which are considered in the ES (NR16). The Network Rail metric is considered to be the most appropriate calculator for linear rail projects.

3.15.6 The area that is covered in the calculation for the whole Project was 338.3 hectares and is worth 2221 biodiversity units. The ecological value of habitats to be lost vary across EWR2 and by Route Section and range from low value improved grassland and arable land to open mosaic habitat (combination of semi-improved grassland and scrub – predominantly in Route Section 2B) and broadleaved semi-natural woodland. This assessment assumes total loss of habitat within the Scheme Boundary and is therefore likely to be an overestimate of the actual loss. Also, to compensate, sympathetic landscape planting and design of ECS will be conducted, including new hedgerows are proposed that will result in more hedgerows being created than existed before development.

3.15.7 The total length of linear feature loss across EWR2 comes to 28.1 km. This is made up of 85.4 m of watercourse and 28.09 km of hedgerow. EWR2 will create 83.8 km of hedgerow resulting in an overall net gain of +27.6 linear kilometres. To compensate for the permanent loss of 85.4 m of watercourse, EWR2 will seek to include watercourse creation and enhancement in the currently undesignated ECS across the route sections.

Project-wide – biodiversity accounting summary for linear habitats

Linear features Length (km)

Total existing length to be lost onsite 28.1

Compensatory habitat required 56.2

New proposed hedgerows 83.8

Net linear balance 27.6

3.15.8 The creation of habitats within the ECS (which include large areas of unimproved grasslands and woodlands), in addition to habitats within the landscape planting, all contribute to compensating for the loss of habitats across EWR2. However, due to large areas of habitats being removed, including areas of high value particularly in Route Section 2B, it causes the net biodiversity balance to be negative at -432 units [1318 onsite compensation gain + 471 biodiversity offsetting gain – 2221 biodiversity loss = -432] This is a negative residual value and a biodiversity net loss for EWR2. This negative residual value is largely attributed the loss of ecologically valuable habitat within Route Section 2B; all other route sections


60

either have a much smaller negative residual value, ranging from -8 units (Route Section 2C) to -39 units (Route Section 2E (South of Station Road)) and Route Section 2A has an overall net gain of 8 units.

3.15.9 There are also 130 trees (within hedgerow planting) that will be planted into the ECS across all route sections. These are included within the linear habitat calculations.

Project wide – biodiversity accounting summary for non-linear habitats

Biodiversity impact accounting Area (ha) Units

Before works 338.3 2221

Gross biodiversity loss 2221

After works 311.0 1318

Biodiversity offsetting 105.0 471

Net biodiversity balance -432

Route Section 2A

3.15.10 The area that is covered in the calculation for Route Section 2A is 97.5 hectares and is worth 573 biodiversity units The majority of the habitat lost as part of EWR2 in Route Section 2A is arable land or improved grassland and is of low ecological value. The other habitat types that are also being lost range from low value (such as scrub) to high value (such as neutral – unimproved grasslands). This assessment assumes total loss of habitat within Route Section 2A. However, to compensate, sympathetic landscape planting and design of ECS will be conducted, including new hedgerows are proposed that will result in more hedgerows being created than existed before development.

3.15.11 The total length of linear features loss across Route Section 2A comes to 9.5 km. This is made up of 13.9 m of watercourse and 9.48 km of hedgerow. There will be an additional 7.5 km of hedgerow created resulting in an overall net gain of +7.6 linear kilometres. To compensate for the permanent loss of 13.9 m of watercourse, EWR2 will seek to include watercourse creation (in the form of a backwater) in ECS A1 although this ECS has not been designed yet.

Route Section 2A – biodiversity accounting summary for linear habitats

3.15.12 The creation of species-rich wildflower meadows, native woodland, new ponds with emergent and marginal vegetation and scrub habitat within the ECS, in addition to habitats within the landscape planting, all contribute to the gain of 61 units. Taking into account the large areas of habitats being removed, the net biodiversity balance is a gain of 8 units [403 onsite compensation gain + 178 biodiversity offsetting gain – 573 biodiversity loss = 8]. This is a positive residual value and a biodiversity net gain for Route Section 2A.

3.15.13 There are also 20 trees (within hedgerow planting) that will be planted across the ECS. These are included within the linear habitat calculations.


Total existing length onsite 9.5


New proposed hedgerows and watercourses 26.6



61

Route Section 2A – biodiversity accounting summary for non-linear habitats






Net biodiversity balance 8

Route Section 2B

3.15.14 The area that is covered in the calculation for Route Section 2B is 148.9 hectares and is worth 1050 biodiversity units. The majority of the habitat lost as part of EWR2 in Route Section 2B include open mosaic habitat (combination of semi-improved grassland and scrub), broadleaved semi- natural woodland, arable land and improved grassland and therefore they range from low to high ecological value. The other habitat types that are also being lost range from low value (such as poor semi-improved grassland) to high value (such as neutral, unimproved grasslands). This assessment assumes total loss of habitat within Route Section 2B. However, to compensate, sympathetic landscape planting and design of ECS will be conducted, including new hedgerows that will result in more hedgerows being created than existed before development.

3.15.15 The total length of linear features loss across Route Section 2B comes to 12.9 km. This is made up of 8.9 m of watercourse and 12.89 km of hedgerow. There will be an additional 20.3 km of hedgerow created resulting in an overall net gain of +20.3 linear kilometres. To compensate for the permanent loss of 8.9 m of watercourse, EWR2 will seek to include watercourse creation in one of the ECS.

Route Section 2B – biodiversity accounting summary for linear habitats






3.15.16 The creation of species-rich wildflower meadows, native woodland, new ponds with emergent and marginal vegetation and scrub habitat within the ECS, in addition to habitats within the landscape planting, all contribute to compensating for the loss of habitats in Route Section 2B. However, due to large areas of habitats being removed, including many of high value, it causes the net biodiversity balance to be negative at -373 units [542 onsite compensation gain + 135 biodiversity offsetting gain – 1050 biodiversity loss = -373]. This is a negative residual value and a biodiversity net loss for Route Section 2B.


Route Section 2B – biodiversity accounting summary for non-linear habitats







62


Route Section 2C

3.15.18 The area that is covered in the calculation for Route Section 2C is 9.7 hectares and is worth 102 biodiversity units. The majority of the habitat lost as part of EWR2 in Route Section 2C includes broadleaved semi-natural woodland and arable land which range from high to low ecological value respectively. The other habitat types that are also being lost, such as scrub, are typically low value habitats. This assessment assumes total loss of habitat within Route Section 2C. However, to compensate, sympathetic landscape planting and design of ECS will be conducted, including new hedgerows.

3.15.19 The total length of linear features loss across Route Section 2C comes to 0.1 km. This is made up entirely of hedgerow. There will be 0.3 km of hedgerow created resulting in an overall net gain of 0.1 linear kilometres.

Route Section 2C – biodiversity accounting summary for linear habitats

3.15.20 The creation of species-rich wildflower meadows, native woodland, new ponds with emergent and

marginal vegetation and scrub habitat within the ECS, in addition to habitats within the landscape planting, all contribute to compensating for the loss of habitats in Route Section 2C. However, as the majority of habitat loss is of high ecological value habitat, it causes a net biodiversity loss at -8 units [37 onsite compensation gain + 57 biodiversity offsetting gain – 102 biodiversity loss = -8]. This is a negative residual value and a biodiversity net loss for Route Section 2C.


Route Section 2C – biodiversity accounting summary for non-linear habitats




After works 7.0 37



Route Section 2D

3.15.22 The area that is covered in the calculation for Route Section 2D is 36.8 hectares and is worth 214 biodiversity units. The majority of the habitat lost as part of EWR2 in Route Section 2D includes broadleaved semi-natural woodland and arable land which range from high to low ecological value respectively. The other habitat types that are also being lost, such as scrub, are typically low value habitats. This assessment assumes total loss of habitat within Route Section 2D. However, to







63

compensate, sympathetic landscape planting and design of ECS will be conducted, including new hedgerows.

3.15.23 The total length of linear features loss across Route Section 2D comes to 3.81 km. This is made up of 10 m of watercourse and 3.8 km of hedgerow. There will be 4.1 km of hedgerow created but this still results in an overall net loss of -3.5 linear kilometres. To compensate for the permanent loss of 10 m of watercourse, EWR2 will seek to include watercourse creation in one of the ECS.

Route Section 2D – biodiversity accounting summary for linear habitats





Net linear balance -3.5

3.15.24 The creation of habitats within the ECS, in addition to habitats within the landscape planting, all contribute to compensating for the loss of habitats in Route Section 2D. The ECS in Route Section 2D have not been subject to detailed design at present and therefore their areas have been assumed to comprise a medium distinctiveness habitat in good condition with a 10-year Time to Target Condition. It is likely that the units generated from each ECS following detailed design will increase but a precautionary approach has been undertaken for this assessment. Due to large areas of habitats being removed, including many of high value (woodland), it causes the net biodiversity balance to be negative at -20 units [152 onsite compensation gain + 42 biodiversity offsetting gain – 214 biodiversity loss =-20] This is a negative residual value and a biodiversity net loss for Route Section 2D.

Route Section 2D – biodiversity accounting summary for non-linear habitats







HS2 Interface Area

3.15.25 No biodiversity accounting calculations are being undertaken in the HS2 Interface Area as this route section has been subject to biodiversity accounting calculations by HS245. The HS2 Interface Area is not reported further in this report.

Route Section 2E (North of Station Road)

3.15.26 No biodiversity accounting calculations are being undertaken in Route Section 2E (North of Station Road) as this route section has been subject to biodiversity accounting calculations by HS2. Route Section 2E (North of Station Road) is not reported further by EWR.

Route Section 2E (South of Station Road)

3.15.27 The area that is covered in the calculation for Route Section 2E (South of Station Road) is 45.4 hectares and is worth 282 biodiversity units. The majority of the habitat lost as part of EWR2 in Route Section 2E (South of Station Road) is arable land or scrub and is of low ecological value. The other habitat types that are also being lost range from low value (such as improved grassland) to high value (such as broadleaved semi-natural woodland). This assessment assumes total loss of habitat within Route Section 2E (South of Station Road). However, to compensate, sympathetic landscape planting and design of ECS will be


64

conducted, including new hedgerows are proposed that will result in more hedgerows being created than existed before development.

3.15.28 The total length of linear features loss across Route Section 2E (South of Station Road) comes to 1.8 km. This is made up of 53 m of watercourse and 1.8 km of hedgerow. There will be a 6.8 km of hedgerow created resulting in an overall net gain of +3.1 linear kilometres. To compensate for the permanent loss of 13.9 m of watercourse, EWR2 will seek to include watercourse creation in one of the ECS in Route Section 2E (South of Station Road).

Route Section 2E (South of Station Road) – biodiversity accounting summary for linear habitats






3.15.29 The creation of habitats within the ECS, in addition to habitats within the landscape planting, all contribute to compensating for the loss of habitats in Route Section 2E (South of Station Road). The ECS in Route Section 2E (South of Station Road) have not been subject to detailed design at present and therefore their areas have been assumed to comprise a medium distinctiveness habitat in good condition with a 10-year Time to Target Condition. It is likely that the units generated from each ECS following detailed design will increase but a precautionary approach has been undertaken for this assessment. Due to large areas of habitats being removed, including many of high value (woodland), it causes the net biodiversity balance to be negative at -39 units [184 onsite compensation gain + 59 biodiversity offsetting gain – 282 biodiversity loss = -39]. This is a negative residual value and a biodiversity net loss for Route Section 2E (South of Station Road).

Route Section 2E (South of Station Road) – biodiversity accounting summary for non-linear habitats







3.15.30 Overall, EWR2 will deliver a significant net gain of linear habitats, mainly hedgerows. This is an important gain in this location, given the importance for foraging and commuting bats. EWR2 is, however, currently delivering a net loss of biodiversity, a loss of 432 units of an original 2221 units (19.5%). This loss of biodiversity has been explored further in Appendix B of my evidence, by comparing the outputs of the Network Rail Metric with the Defra and Warwickshire metrics used by many stakeholders.

3.15.31 Both the Defra and Warwickshire metrics show a greater net loss: of 681 units for EWR2 using the Defra metric and the 984 units using the Warwickshire method. The full breakdown of the habitat losses is presented in Appendix B of my evidence. Both are, as for the Network Rail metric, particularly focussed on the loss of habitat in Route Section 2B, but also 2A, particularly using the assumptions of the Warwickshire metric’s trading down adjustment.

3.15.32 In order to compensate for the loss of biodiversity as a result of EWR2, further habitat creation or enhancement would be required to deliver no net loss. In Appendix B of my evidence, I set out several options for how that could be delivered through the creation of different habitat types. This represents 220 – 280ha of additional habitat creation or enhancement. As I have explained in my evidence, Network Rail does not have the powers to acquire land to deliver net gain, but this illustrates the sorts of areas of land


65

that could deliver a gain through agreement with landowners. Other options will continue to be explored and the calculations would be refined, since presumed losses are likely to be overestimates.


66

4 Responses to Objectors 4.1 Ecological Objectors 4.1.1 In this section of my evidence, I respond to those statutory objectors who have raised ecological issues in

their objection to EWR2. The following objectors to EWR2 are concerned about ecological impacts, including net loss of biodiversity.

a) OBJ/178 – Environment Agency (EA)

b) OBJ/214 – Bedford Borough Council

c) OBJ/221 - Oxfordshire County Council and Cherwell District Council

d) OBJ/232 – Buckinghamshire County Council

e) OBJ/233 – Milton Keynes Council

f) OBJ/241 – Central Bedfordshire Council

g) OBJ/242 – Natural England (Statement of Case REP 10)

h) REP/6 – Aylesbury Vale District Council

4.1.2 The following objectors, whilst not necessarily expressing an ecological objection, are concerned with land which is being taken for ecological reasons.

a) OBJ/22 Kier

b) OBJ/27 Chandler Ray

c) OBJ/88 & OBJ/89 Lower Salden Farm

d) OBJ/114 - Trustees Of Woburn Estates

e) OBJ/121 – Barretts Of Aspley Limited Directors Pension Scheme And Simon George Cooper Hill ECS B20

f) OBJ/147 - W & JA Hunter Partnership And Lasalle ECS E4

g) OBJ156 O&H

h) OBJ/183 Manor Farm

i) OBJ/ 229 – Gladman Developments And OBJ/230 - Jane Elizabeth Spooner(Statement Of Case OBJ/228-OBJ/231) ECS B10

4.1.3 In the following sections of my evidence I will respond to each of these in turn.


67

Objection OBJ/178 Environment Agency 4.1.4 The Environment Agency (EA) stated that they had no in-principle objections to EWR2 as proposed.

However, they made a series of comments relating to biodiversity.

Riparian species survey information 4.1.5 The EA supported the objection to this TWAO application Natural England for a requirement for further

survey information, in particular for riparian species such as otter. The EA requested some key changes or clarifications to be provided before the determination of the TWAO.

4.1.6 Further ecological survey information was provided in the Further Environmental Information (FEI) which included revised Technical Appendices (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) and the Further Environmental Information Main Report (Part I of the FEI (NR47)), which were published in November 2018. Consultation meetings were held with the EA to explain the strategy for producing further information which was not to provide a second version of the entire ES.

Biodiversity net gain 4.1.7 The EA reiterated comments made by Natural England in their response about biodiversity net gain for

the scheme stating that this has been very poorly reflected within the application documents, despite being a longstanding commitment by the East West Rail Alliance. They requested that this commitment should be reflected in the application documents in line with the government’s ambitions set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan and in line with recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.1.8 Whilst Network Rail is under an obligation to mitigate all of the impacts of EWR2, it does not consider that there is any statutory or policy basis which require provision of a net gain, nor that it has the compulsory purchase powers to achieve it. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states a number of policy objectives that government has for planning policy and decision making in relation to the natural environment. These objectives include seeking opportunities to realise net gains in biodiversity through planning policy making and decisions. However, the principles that planning authorities should apply when determining planning applications are stated in paragraph 175 of the NPPF. Those principles do not include any requirement that individual planning applications are currently required to deliver a net gain in biodiversity. Instead, the focus is upon the avoidance of significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development.

4.1.9 An Order made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 may include powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for mitigation measures required for the Order Scheme, but not for land solely to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. For this reason, we are not able to acquire additional land that would allow us to deliver a net gain in “biodiversity units” according to the Defra or Warwickshire metrics. The EWR Alliance has, however, calculated the current biodiversity accounting position of the Scheme using the Network Rail, Defra and Warwickshire metrics. This currently demonstrates a shortfall of some 440 biodiversity units. The EWR Alliance has been commissioned to research how this shortfall, plus additional units to deliver a net gain could be delivered by working in partnership with local stakeholders.

4.1.10 EWR2 is currently delivering net gain for individual species/groups wherever possible through the development of the ecological compensation sites. For example, the mitigation proposed would represent a significant net gain in aquatic and terrestrial habitat for great crested newts, which will be managed and protected in the long term.

4.1.11 The EA stated “We would like to be consulted with details for condition 11 for each development stage submitted (as required by planning condition 2). We request that part a) of condition 11 is amended as set out below:

a) No stage of development is to commence…until…a written ecological management plan outlining the management of the ecology compensation sites and other areas of the Development where ecological habitat is being altered or created (e.g. watercourse crossings) within that Stage…has been submitted…

We are requesting this change because there are areas where watercourses are being affected by the proposed development that are not included within ecology compensation sites. It is important that alterations to watercourses and their habitats are properly managed long-term to ensure there are no detrimental impacts as a result of the development.

We concur with Natural England’s comments to this consultation that there is currently insufficient survey data to confirm whether further ecological compensation will be required.”

4.1.12 The wording of Condition 11 has been amended, as follows:

a) 11. Ecology


68

− No stage of the development is to commence within the area of a Local Planning Authority until, for that Stage, a written ecological management plan outlining the management of the ecology compensation sites within that stage, reflecting the survey results and ecological mitigation measures included in the Environmental Statement has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority with responsibility for any area within the stage in consultation with the Environment Agency.

− The ecological management plan must include an implementation timetable and must be carried out as approved.

b) Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the natural wildlife and ecology of the area.

4.1.13 Where habitat is being altered only, i.e. outwith replacement/creation, it is unnecessary to be the subject of a management plan. Creation of habitat falls under the heading of ecology compensation site.

4.1.14 Watercourses are covered by EA protective provisions.

4.1.15 Network Rail published Further Environmental Information in November 2018 to augment the ES (NR16). This FEI comprises three parts:

a) Part I – Main report

b) Part II – Updated technical appendices

c) Part III – Updated figures

4.1.16 Detailed survey information is provided in updated technical appendices (Part II) and figures (Part III), and the main changes in terms of survey findings and to the evaluation, impact assessment and mitigation are summarised in the main report (Part I).

Comments on details of the ES 4.1.17 The EA stated “Volume 2i (Project-wide), Chapter 2 Paragraph 2.4.62 The applicant should assess the

nature of the particular watercourse when replacing culverts, rather than solely relying on whether there is an existing gravel bed, as gravels may have been previously removed.”

4.1.18 This issue has been discussed and agreed with the EA that the text here was an example of one type of operation. Further detail will be provided on the proposals at each watercourse at the detailed design stage.

4.1.19 The EA stated “Paragraph 2.4.81 Riparian habitats are not mentioned as either being considered for potential impacts or mitigation, but we are aware that some areas of riparian habitat will be affected by the scheme.”

4.1.20 Riparian habitats are not mentioned in that part of the ES (NR16) but are discussed in detail in Chapter 9 (Ecology), Volume 2i (Project-wide) of the ES (NR16).

4.1.21 The EA stated “Paragraph 2.5.24 – 2.5.26 There is no mention in the requirements for construction compounds to be sited at least 10m away from watercourses, as we noted during our pre-application discussions with the applicant. If all of the compounds are located away from watercourses, it should be made clear in this section.”

4.1.22 While Network Rail will seek to locate compounds more than 10m away from a watercourse. However, given the scale of EWR2 and the constraints of the local environment this will not always be possible.

4.1.23 The EA stated “Volume 2i (Project-wide), Chapter 9 Paragraphs 9.3.19 – 9.3.24 This section only seems to refer to the channel rather than river/stream corridor. The quality of instream habitats are influenced by the stream corridor habitat and this should be reflected in any assessments of existing condition, potential impact and any mitigation proposals.”

4.1.24 The term “watercourse habitat” is used as a term for both the in-channel and bankside/riparian (stream corridor) habitats. The stream corridor habitat has been reflected within the assessment of existing condition, potential impacts and for the purposes of developing mitigation. Appendix 9.2 v2 Aquatic Habitats and Species (issued as Part II of the FEI (NR47)) details the range of surveys undertaken on watercourses including River Corridor Survey (RCS) and RCS field survey reporting. This information has been used in combination with aquatic species data and other habitat survey data (i.e. River Habitat Survey) to assess existing conditions, provide a watercourse evaluation, against which an assessment of impacts has been undertaken. Where watercourses were screened out of detailed surveys (as detailed Appendix 9.2 v2 in Part II of the FEI (NR47)), the riparian corridor and channel form have been described


69

with reference to background records, review of aerial imagery and other project sources such as culvert inspection reports and Water Framework Directive walkover surveys.

4.1.25 The EA stated “Paragraphs 9.5.34 – 9.5.43 It needs to be demonstrated there will be no significant effects resulting from the loss of watercourse, bank side vegetation and disturbance. If alternative habitat is being proposed, the applicant must demonstrate that it is equivalent or better habitat and that any species at risk could make use of it. Minor watercourses can be as important, if not more important, than main rivers for many species.”

4.1.26 Our proposals are designed to deliver no net loss, and potentially a net gain, of this habitat. All watercourses are considered in the ES (NR16) (and updated as necessary in the FEI (NR47)), including minor ordinary watercourses that are described within the baseline as heavily managed agricultural field drains. Specific commitments to enhance in-channel and riparian habitats has been made within Appendix 2i Volume 3 and are included in Appendix A of my evidence.

4.1.27 Further detail on the relevant mitigation requirements is provided in the response to comment ref. 29, below.

4.1.28 The EA stated “Table 9.1 The stand-off area for each otter holt and lying-up site will need to be assessed on its own merits rather than having a blanket 100m/30m stand-off distance, neither of which we believe to be acceptable distances. Should an otter holt or lying-up site be found, Natural England will need to be consulted to advise whether a licence will be required.”

4.1.29 We have adopted the standard SNH guidance for our proposals here, but the Ecological Clerk of Works will consider the site-specific context if any holt or lying-up site is found and in the event that the Ecological Clerk of Works considers a licence may be required for an occupied holt we would, of course, consult with Natural England on the specific case.

4.1.30 The EA stated “Paragraphs 9.4.11 – 9.4.17 This section should mention that rivers and streams are Priority Habitats under the NERC Act. Their assessment and importance is greater than just for the Water Framework Directive.”

4.1.31 Water Framework Directive (WFD) is mentioned where the watercourse is assessed under the WFD to provide context in terms of current status of biological and hydro-morphological elements. WFD is not being used as a surrogate measure of importance. All watercourse that could potentially be affected are considered within the assessment provided in the ES (NR16) and updated as required in the FEI (NR47).

4.1.32 The EA stated “Paragraph 9.4.45 This states that it is assumed that otters are present on each watercourse network and the terrestrial habitat associated with it, but no mitigation appears to have been proposed to reflect this.”

4.1.33 The mitigation for otters is detailed in paragraphs 9.5.63 – 9.5.70 of Chapter 9 (Ecology) Volume 2i of the ES (NR16). No changes were proposed in the FEI (NR47).

4.1.34 The EA stated “Table 9.15 This states that 9km of ‘Running water’ will be lost through the scheme and none will be reinstated/gained. We are not sure whether this is an error, as paragraph 9.5.36 states that 85.8m of open watercourse (3m on main river and rest on ordinary watercourse) will be lost. This will need to be clarified and clearly mapped for ease of reference in any future submissions. We are also unsure what “Running water – eutrophic” (0.3km lost, 0km gained) and “Running water - mesotrophic” (4.1km lost, 6.4km gained) are supposed to mean”

4.1.35 The reference to 9km being lost was an error in the ES (NR16). The value stated of 85.8m of open watercourse (3m on main river and rest on ordinary watercourse) will be lost is the correct statement calculated from known permanent open channel watercourse losses resulting from culvert works associated with the railway and highways/access routes works.

4.1.36 The EA stated “Paragraph 9.5.36 This states that 1-2m of main river habitat will be lost by culvert extensions. However, it is not clear why meanders could not be included in the proposals to prevent this loss of open channel. There should be no net loss of open channel without providing substantial justification.”

4.1.37 Paragraph 9.5.36 details the full extent of permanent watercourse open channel losses on main rivers across the route sections as follows:

“Main river permanent watercourse habitat losses are minimal and will not result in significant effects on watercourse habitats or aquatic species. The losses include the extension to an existing railway culvert on the Fleet Marston Brook (AF644_WC2E_014) and a culvert extension on the Launton Brook (AF040_WC2A_003a) associated with the realignment of Station Road. These works will result in the loss of 1 m and not more than 2 m of watercourse and riparian habitat respectively.”


70

4.1.38 Mitigation for watercourse habitat losses including the design of realignment channels and improvements associated with drainage works are considered to provide net gain compared to the loses of 85.8m across the Route Sections. Therefore there will be no net loss of open channel.

4.1.39 Meanders were not considered appropriate within the context of the physical habitat characteristics of either watercourse, which at the culvert locations are best described as agricultural field drains that only convey flow during high return periods. Meandering of watercourses of this character would not induce improvements to either the habitats or the ecological features supported due to their hydromorphological character.

4.1.40 This stated, mitigation for permanent watercourse habitat losses is included across the Scheme through the enhancement / provision of watercourse / ditch habitats in the Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS). The ecological design of realignment channels and drainage works have not been designed in full. However, the elements of design that would provide net gain compared to the loses of 85.8m across the Route Sections, which will developed during detailed design and include a number of features which are set out in Appendix A of my evidence.

4.1.41 The EA stated “Paragraph 9.5.37 We are unsure what the realignment of watercourses outside of the scheme boundary to offset temporary habitat losses refers to. This will need to be clarified as we are not sure that we have been informed of these proposals before now.”

4.1.42 To clarify, this paragraph refers to watercourses within the Scheme Boundary but which are not directly affected by the main engineering works. The statement relates to habitat improvements that will be built in to the design of watercourse realignments required to move existing watercourses outside of the footprint of the main engineering works.

4.1.43 The EA stated “Paragraph 9.5.38 Biodiversity net gain could be delivered by improving, rather than just reinstating temporarily affected watercourse riparian zones (e.g. by temporary crossings) as proposed in this paragraph. We expect to be consulted with any reinstatement/improvement works to watercourses, potentially as part of the proposed planning condition 9 or 11.”

4.1.44 The following avoidance, mitigation and/or compensation measures have been incorporated into the design of EWR2 to comply with national and local planning policy, current legislation and good practice:

a) The EA would be consulted on any reinstatement/improvement works to watercourses, in line with the amended proposed planning condition 9 and 11. The following avoidance, mitigation and/or compensation measures have been incorporated into the design of EWR2 to comply with national and local planning policy, current legislation and good practice.

b) Any permanent watercourse diversion works required to realign watercourses out of the footprint of new earthworks/Project elements will be designed so that there is no net loss in watercourse extent. Designs will incorporate measures that enhance both in-channel and riparian habitat quality e.g. provision of a two-stage channel, marginal planting.

c) Watercourse diversions required in association with off-line culvert replacements along the existing railway will incorporate design measures that enhance both in-channel and riparian habitat quality e.g. provision of a two-stage channel, marginal planting. In such instances a net gain in watercourse extent in anticipated, as a result of the requirement to realign the watercourse to the new crossing location.

d) Public Rights of Way (PRoW) crossing of all main rivers watercourses and some ordinary watercourses will be by single-span footbridges so as not to impact in-channel habitats and aquatic species.

e) Drainage works required to watercourses will be sensitive to the existing channel condition and will not, as far as practicably possible, act to reduce habitat and ecological complexity. Opportunities will be sought to improve habitat condition through, for example, the incorporation of measures that will enhance both in-channel and riparian habitat quality e.g. provision of a two-stage channel, marginal planting.

f) Detailed design of culverts and associated watercourse modifications shall incorporate wherever practical:

− allowance for the appropriate conveyance of water and sediment for a range of flows (including at low flow conditions)

− maintenance of the existing channel gradient to avoid erosion at the upstream or downstream end of a culvert

− avoidance of reduction of watercourse length through shortening of watercourse planform


71

− minimisation of culvert length through adoption of a perpendicular alignment to the railway

− the use of box culverts on all main rivers and for new highways watercourse crossings

− embedded culvert inverts for all box culverts and piped culverts where practical, to allow for formation of a natural watercourse bed (culvert invert to a depth of at least 0.15 m to 0.3 m below existing bed level) and to reduce the potential for significant habitat severance and effects on fish passage

g) Track drainage will provide effective treatment and attenuation through the use of ballast and filter media, oversize pipes and new vegetated ditch systems prior to direct discharge to surface water features.

h) Appropriate treatment of grey water discharges from new areas of hardstanding associated with work compounds and reinstatement of disturbed ground following decommissioning of compounds.

i) New access routes will be constructed of Type 1 material so as not to significantly affect infiltration and run-off quality and quantity adjacent to aquatic habitats.

j) Run-off from new highways will be treated through SuDS and set at Greenfield run-off rates as to not result in changes in water delivery rates over baseline conditions and to provide effective treatment before discharging to existing watercourses.

k) SuDS and drainage features shall not act to offset the loss of any pond nd are not included in any offsetting calculations; however, SuDS shall be designed to maximise their biodiversity value, in line with the CIRIA SuDS Manual.

l) Requirements for grey protection to control/prevent scour (e.g. headwalls, rock armour, rip-rap, gabion baskets) at new drainage outfalls to watercourses and standing water bodies will be limited to that absolutely required. Options for direct earthworks connection or the use of alternative solutions, such as none or green scour protection (e.g. vegetation, geotextile matting) would be preferred where practicable.

4.1.45 The EA stated “Paragraph 9.5.40 Bullet 2 - fish spawning seasons should be avoided. Bullet 4 – “outside bird nesting season” needs to be added. Bullet 5 - a fish rescue plan will be required for temporary or permanent dewatering.”

4.1.46 Technical Appendix 9.2 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) reports impoverished fish communities for those watercourses screened as requiring fish survey that are affected by habitat loss/disturbance. The avoidance of fish spawning seasons will be targeted only on those watercourses where works could affect a notable fish population. A statement for the requirement for fish rescue planning will be added in any future documents including the CEMP.

4.1.47 Where tree felling and vegetation clearance cannot be achieved outside of the nesting bird season, an inspection of vegetation to be cleared for breeding birds and their occupied nests will be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist no more than 24 hours prior to any works being undertaken. If any nesting birds are identified during the survey they will be left in situ for their entire nesting period and alternative approaches to the work proposed. This may include leaving an exclusion zone around the nests to avoid disturbance. These requirements will be outlined within the CEMP.

4.1.48 The EA stated “Paragraph 9.5.41 This is not very ambitious and disappointing that this is all that is being offered from such a big scheme. If creating new channel length (by re-meandering watercourses) is not feasible along other reaches, in-stream enhancements, marginal planting, bank reprofiling and/or riparian planting or vegetation management should be proposed.”

4.1.49 Paragraph 9.5.41 does not identify the full range of watercourse mitigation and compensation being planned. A number of the Ecological Compensation Sites will have aquatic habitats but these had not been through detailed design at the ES (NR16) stage. Future documents including the CEMP will set out all watercourse mitigation information including Horwood Brook realignment and ecological design of realignment works in line with our comments above.

4.1.50 The EA stated “Paragraph 9.5.58 This paragraph states that 510m of new or enhanced aquatic habitat is to be provided, but paragraph 9.5.41 states that 240m of habitat is to be enhanced or created. The applicant should clarify this discrepancy and confirm the correct figure to ensure that sufficient mitigation and/or compensation has been provided for the scheme losses.”


72

4.1.51 Paragraph 5.4.41 refers to sites A1 and B7 only, and paragraph 9.5.58 refers also to site D4. Any inconsistencies will be corrected in the supplementary ecological reports which will set out our revised data on ecological losses and gains.

4.1.52 The EA stated “Volume 3, Chapter 9, Appendices 9.1-9.15 Ecological mitigation. The proposed ecological mitigation sites could be improved by ensuring connectivity with other habitats, reflecting the importance of natural networks noted in Article 10 of the Habitats Directive”.

4.1.53 Habitat created for ecological mitigation will require sufficient time to become established before any other habitat is lost or any translocation of species is attempted. Further ecological surveys of the proposed mitigation sites will be required before any habitat is removed. This is to ensure that decisions are based on up-to-date ecological information about the species and habitats present on these sites, and that important habitats or species are not lost”. The Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS) are located to provide “stepping stones” through the landscape for terrestrial species affected by EWR2. Appendix 9.13 v2 provides details on how ECS improve connectivity on a landscape scale by linking and complementing existing features such as LWS, BNS, or other features such as woodland blocks or hedgerow networks. Time for establishment of compensatory habitats has been factored into our programme. This is why some ECS have already been completed by landowner agreement, and others are already in progress. All work is preceded by ecological surveys to update information on protected species etc and works are supervised by Ecological Clerks of Works.

4.1.54 The EA stated “Habitat mitigation Watercourses, including ditches, streams and rivers should be included in the habitat mitigation. The development will affect watercourses wherever there are culverts or other crossings.”

4.1.55 Watercourses, including ditches, streams and rivers are all included in the habitat mitigation.

4.1.56 The EA stated “Protected species mitigation – fish It was not clear to us that there is any mitigation proposed for fish, including eels and bullhead. Fish must be protected during and after construction, including ensuring that passage is maintained for fish and eels and that workers are aware of and have reporting procedures in place for fish in distress. If fish are observed to be in distress, works should be stopped immediately and appropriate actions taken.”

4.1.57 The following embedded design mitigation is included for fish passage in relation to crossing structures:

a) minimisation of culvert length through adoption of a perpendicular alignment to the railway

b) the use of box culverts on all main rivers and for new highways watercourse crossings

c) embedded culvert inverts for all box culverts and piped culverts where practicable, to allow for formation of a natural watercourse bed (culvert invert to a depth of at least 0.15 m to 0.3 m below existing bed level) and to reduce the potential for significant habitat severance and effects on fish passage

4.1.58 No migratory species were identified within the watercourses for which background record and survey data identifies both main rivers and ordinary watercourse as supporting a species poor fish assemblage. All culvert works will be designed to facilitate fish passage, this also includes those watercourses that were screened out of fish survey requirements due to their physical habitat characteristics.

4.1.59 Requirements for protection of fish during/after construction will be incorporated into the CEMP through the production of Method Statement / Management Plans that will cover procedures for reducing impacts on fish associated with in-channel working, over-pumping and future maintenance activities.

4.1.60 The EA stated “Protected species mitigation – otter and water voles. Otters and water vole must be able to cross the line using ledges within culverts (at the appropriate height within the culvert) and should not be able to cross the railway line itself. The summary states that otters are at risk of injury or death from trains, but the ES Chapter 2 (and further down in the summary) states that the whole line will be fenced. It is not clear whether there remains a residual risk of injury or death or if the fencing will be sufficient mitigation to prevent injury/death.”

4.1.61 It is intended that comprehensive fencing and safe crossing points will be provided such that there is no residual risk to otters as reported in the residual effects section of Chapter 9 (Ecology) Volume 2i Project-wide of the ES (NR16).


73

Objection 214 (Bedford Borough Council) 4.1.62 Bedford Borough Council raised the following four points: lack of field surveys in the July ES; the absence

of provision for biodiversity net gain; the need for details of the Ecological Compensation Sites; and potential impacts on invertebrates.

Lack of Field Surveys 4.1.63 It was acknowledged in the ES (NR16) that not all ecological surveys had been completed prior to

submission. During the process of completing the ES (NR16), all previous ecological survey data that had been collected on behalf of Network Rail and the Alliance were reviewed. Only where data were verified as being collected according to good practice, by ecologists deemed to be competent (using Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management guidelines), were those results included in the ES (NR16). Where field surveys were not completed, or previous data were not included, the assessment in the ES has been based on a reasonable precautionary approach (considering existing knowledge of the ecological feature, citing supplementary information where deemed relevant and necessary, and applying professional judgement). Recent, and where appropriate historic background records, publicly available aerial imagery, the known local distribution of species (or species groups), survey results from adjacent areas, and the suitability of habitats present within the appropriate Study Areas have all been used to inform the existing baseline. In no case has a presumption been made that a protected species known to be in the area is absent from EWR2, or that there could be no effect upon it.

4.1.64 This precautionary approach was used to identify and assess the main significant effects which EWR2 is likely to have on biodiversity. Further details on the approach to missing information for each ecology feature (designated site, habitat or species) was provided in Appendices 9.1 to 9.12 in Volume 3. Subject to access, surveys have continued to be undertaken throughout 2018 to inform detailed design and to refine our assessment of impacts. Given the precautionary approach that has been taken in assessing potential impacts, it was not anticipated that these surveys would result in an increase in our assessment of the importance of ecological features or the level of predicted impact or the significance of residual effect. Indeed, these surveys ruled out the presence of some protected species, such as white-clawed crayfish or hazel dormouse, the presence of which had previously had to be assumed on a precautionary basis, in some locations. The updated information provided in the Further Environmental Information (FEI), published in November 2018, included updated updated Technical Appendices (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) and updated sections of text from the ES (NR16) in the Main Report (Part I of the FEI (NR47)). These have provided the further information that was required to confirm the assessment made in the ES (NR16).

Biodiversity Net Gain 4.1.65 . Whilst Network Rail is under an obligation to mitigate all of the impacts of EWR2, it does not consider

that there is any statutory or policy basis which require provision of a net gain, nor that it has the compulsory purchase powers to achieve it. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states a number of policy objectives that government has for planning policy and decision making in relation to the natural environment. These objectives include seeking opportunities to realise net gains in biodiversity through planning policy making and decisions. However, the principles that planning authorities should apply when determining planning applications are stated in paragraph 175 of the NPPF. Those principles do not include any requirement that individual planning applications are currently required to deliver a net gain in biodiversity. Instead, the focus is upon the avoidance of significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development.

4.1.66 As such, an Order made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 may include powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for mitigation measures required for the Order Scheme, but not for land solely to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. For this reason, we are not able to acquire additional land that would allow us to deliver a net gain in “biodiversity units” according to the Defra or Warwickshire metrics.

4.1.67 In accordance with Government’s 25 year plan (A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (NR124)), the DfT and East West Rail Company have confirmed their aspiration for EWR2 to achieve a net positive gain. The powers sought under the Order are those required to deliver the Order Scheme and measures that are required to mitigate the associated environmental effects. Network Rail will, however, support the DfT and East West Rail Company in working with landowners and other stakeholders to explore opportunities to provide gains in biodiversity at a local level. The delivery of any such biodiversity gains would be in addition to the mitigation measures reported in the ES (NR16) and secured by the Order.


74

Ecological Compensation Sites 4.1.68 The design of the Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS) will be undertaken at the detailed design stage.

Appendix 9.13 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) sets out which habitat features will be included in each ECS. Some ECS have been constructed in advance by landowner agreement to allow time for habitats to be established. Wherever possible the areas around flood compensation areas and SuDS features will be of value for biodiversity; however this will be in addition to the ecological mitigation delivered by EWR2. The Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS) are located to provide stepping stones through the landscape for terrestrial species affected by EWR2. Appendix 9.13 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) provides details on how ECS improve connectivity on a landscape scale by linking and complementing existing features such as LWS, BNS, or other features such as woodland blocks or hedgerow networks.

4.1.69 The ES (NR16) reports a temporary loss of connectivity during construction for certain species such as great crested newts and reptiles that are more reliant on the existing railway as a means of moving through the landscape, and where suitable alterative habitat outside of the scheme boundary is not prevalent. The size of the ECS and the habitats created within them are considered viable to support populations of such species during this temporary loss of connectivity. Once construction is complete, the habitats created on the railway embankments will provide long-term connectivity in addition to that provided by the ECS.

4.1.70 Although the ECS have been designed to compensate for impacts to habitats and notable species, these sites will also provide suitable habitat in the long-term for more common species such as amphibians and small mammals, as well as rarer species not protected by any legislation such as hedgehog.

Invertebrates 4.1.71 Further invertebrate surveys were conducted during 2018, and the results published in the FEI (NR47) in

November 2018. The open mosaic habitats of value to invertebrates will be replicated in several of the Ecological Compensation Sites.


75

Objection 221 (Oxfordshire County Council and Cherwell District Council)

4.1.72 Oxfordshire County Council and Cherwell District Council’s objection to EWR2 was primarily on the basis of the lack of field survey data in the July ES, and the absence of a commitment to net gain.

Lack of Field Surveys 4.1.73 Oxfordshire County Council and Cherwell District Council’s comments on the availability of adequate

survey information are noted. It is acknowledged in the ES (NR16) that not all ecological surveys had been completed prior to submission. During the process of completing the ES (NR16), all previous ecological survey data that had been collected on behalf of Network Rail and the Alliance were reviewed. Only where data were verified as being collected according to good practice, by ecologists deemed to be competent (using Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management guidelines), were those results included in the ES (NR16). Where field surveys were not completed, or previous data were not included, the assessment in the ES (NR16) has been based on a reasonable precautionary approach (considering existing knowledge of the ecological feature, citing supplementary information where deemed relevant and necessary, and applying professional judgment). Recent, and where appropriate historic, background records, publicly available aerial imagery, the known local distribution of species (or species groups), survey results from adjacent areas, and the suitability of habitats present within the appropriate Study Areas have all been used to inform the existing baseline. In no case has a presumption been made that a protected species known to be in the area is absent from EWR2, or that there could be no effect upon it. This precautionary approach was used to identify and assess the main significant effects which EWR2 is likely to have on biodiversity.

4.1.74 Subject to access, surveys continued to be undertaken throughout 2018 to inform detailed design and to refine our assessment of impacts. These surveys included watercourses and standing water, white-clawed crayfish, otter, water vole, badger, bats, dormice, great crested newt, reptiles, birds, barn owls and Local Wildlife Sites. Given the precautionary approach that was taken in assessing potential impacts, it was not anticipated that these surveys would result in an increase in our assessment of the importance of ecological features or the level of predicted impact or the significance of residual effect. Indeed, these surveys ruled out the presence of protected species, such as white-clawed crayfish or hazel dormouse, the presence of which has had to be assumed on a precautionary basis, in some locations. These surveys were published in November 2018 as the Further Environmental Information report and revised Technical Appendices. Thus although the data were not available in the consultation period for the ES (NR16), they were available in advance of the need to submit evidence to the Public Inquiry.

Biodiversity Net Gain 4.1.75 Whilst Network Rail is under an obligation to mitigate all of the impacts of EWR2, it does not consider that

there is any statutory or policy basis which require provision of a net gain, nor that it has the compulsory purchase powers to achieve it. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states a number of policy objectives that government has for planning policy and decision making in relation to the natural environment. These objectives include seeking opportunities to realise net gains in biodiversity through planning policy making and decisions. However, the principles that planning authorities should apply when determining planning applications are stated in paragraph 175 of the NPPF. Those principles do not include any requirement that individual planning applications are currently required to deliver a net gain in biodiversity. Instead, the focus is upon the avoidance of significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development.


4.1.77 In accordance with Government’s 25-year plan, the DfT and East West Rail Company have confirmed their aspiration for EWR2 to achieve a net positive gain. The powers sought under the Order are those required to deliver the Order Scheme and measures that are required to mitigate the associated environmental effects. Network Rail will, however, support the DfT and East West Rail Company in working with landowners and other stakeholders to explore opportunities to provide gains in biodiversity at a local level. The delivery of any such biodiversity gains would be in addition to the mitigation measures reported in the ES (NR16) and secured by the Order.


76

OBJ/232 – Buckinghamshire County Council 4.1.78 Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) provided a detailed response and I have addressed each of their

points in turn below. This incorporates points made jointly with Aylesbury Vale District Council.

4.1.79 BCC stated “This review follows on from the one we undertook in April 2018. The April review concluded that the document submitted was incomplete with many gaps on information and survey. Residual impacts at the time had not been finalised due to incomplete data sets. This review has completed the residual impact assessment and made indications of compensation required however, this has been completed without the benefit of a finalised set of survey data. Without this information a complete understanding of the ecological impacts and subsequent mitigation, compensation and enhancements proposed is not possible and therefore a comprehensive assessment of the impacts to ecology from the project can not be made with any certainty. Data from previous survey effort still seems to be missing. The missing data may provide the consultees with greater confidence that the conclusions drawn during the assessment are appropriate. The report still does not contain the references towards net gain for biodiversity we would expect of a development of this scale. This was something that was promoted by EWR from the projects concept and communicated as a benefit of this scheme. It was expected EWR’s long term aspirations for the Ecological Conservation Sites (ECS) and other mitigation areas would be on an in perpetuity basis. It is understood that ECS site have been secured but it is unclear whether this is an adequate amount of land and is indeed to be managed in perpetuity. Where shortfalls of net gain are identified other approaches to mitigation and offsetting may be appropriate. For instance the use of NGO’s such as BBOWT to buy and manage land need to be considered, especially in the River Ray project area (geographically very close to EWR and in a Biodiversity Opportunity Area). Over all we acknowledge that the document is in a far more complete state that that submitted in April but it is disappointing that it appears to have been submitted prior to completion of an appropriate amount of survey information.”

4.1.80 It was acknowledged in the ES (NR16) that not all ecological surveys had been completed prior to submission. Following an audit of all survey data collected a decision was made only to report in the ES (NR16) on data that we considered could be relied at Public Inquiry. Where field surveys were not completed, or previously collected data were not included, the assessment in the ES (NR16) was based on a reasonable precautionary approach (considering existing knowledge of the ecological feature, citing supplementary information where deemed relevant and necessary, and applying professional judgment). Recent and, where appropriate, historic background records, publicly available aerial imagery, the known local distribution of species (or species groups), survey results from adjacent areas, and the suitability of habitats present within the appropriate Study Areas have all been used to inform the existing baseline. The ES (NR16) makes informed assumptions that protected species are present on the scheme area where suitable habitat exists.

4.1.81 This precautionary approach was used to identify and assess the main significant effects which EWR2 is likely to have on biodiversity. Further details on the approach to missing information for each ecology feature (designated site, habitat or species) are provided in Appendices 9.1 to 9.12 in Volume 3. Subject to access, surveys were undertaken throughout 2018 to inform detailed design and to refine our assessment of impacts. These were published as the Further Environmental Information Report and revised Technical Appendices. Given the precautionary approach that was taken in assessing potential impacts, it was not anticipated that such surveys would result in an increase in our assessment of the importance of ecological features or the level of predicted impact or the significance of residual effect. Indeed, these surveys ruled out the presence of protected species, such as white-clawed crayfish or hazel dormouse, the presence of which has had to be assumed on a precautionary basis, in some locations. By producing the further information in November, there was adequate time for stakeholders to take it into account before producing evidence for Public Inquiry.

4.1.82 Whilst Network Rail is under an obligation to mitigate all of the impacts of EWR2, it does not consider that there is any statutory or policy basis which require provision of a net gain, nor that it has the compulsory purchase powers to achieve it. As such, an Order made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 may include powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for mitigation measures required for EWR2, but not for land solely to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. For this reason, we are not able to acquire additional land that would allow us to deliver a net gain in “biodiversity units” according to the Defra or Warwickshire metrics. Net positive remains an aspiration of EWR2. We are currently delivering net gain for individual species / groups wherever possible through the development of the Ecological Compensation Sites. For example, the mitigation proposed would represent a significant net gain in aquatic and terrestrial habitat for great crested newts which will be managed and protected in the long term (30 years).

4.1.83 The concept of “in perpetuity” is difficult to define in any development project, and typically periods of 25-30 years are used in planning to condition long term management. Thirty years has been suggested by Natural England as a typical time frame to manage habitats in the long-term for the benefit of the species


77

affected by EWR2 and this requirement has been included in the draft Orders. EWR2 therefore includes sufficient land, under control of Network Rail in the long term, to fully mitigate the impacts anticipated. Where additional gain can be delivered at no further public cost, we will take the opportunity to deliver further enhancements, either on land taken for EWR2, or by landowner agreement.

4.1.84 BCC went on to state that “it is unclear if the Suds schemes have been designed in a way that optimises their ecological benefits and reduces their potential adverse impacts. This was raised during previous consultations and is important as many small water bodies and ditches currently occur within the existing disused railway bed.”

4.1.85 Enough land has been included in the Order to offset all impacts on aquatic habitats and species through specific ecological compensation areas. At this stage of EWR2, SuDS are designed primarily for managing drainage and we have not included any potential benefits to biodiversity in our biodiversity calculation. However, opportunities to develop SuDS features to include biodiversity enhancements is being explored during detailed design. Any further ecological benefits that are achieved will be additional, and represent net gain.

4.1.86 With regard to white-clawed crayfish, BCC stated “An assumption has been made that there will be no residual effect on this species. No translocation is therefore proposed. This assumption has been made without knowledge of what the status is of this species in the affected area. Assumed populations do not provide adequate assurance that the species is properly protected as required under legislation.”

4.1.87 This is not the case. The presence of white-clawed crayfish was assumed in the ES (NR16) and mitigation (including translocation where necessary) was been proposed for those areas. These assumptions were detailed in Vol 2i Chapter 9 paragraph 9.4.37 and provided below.

4.1.88 Further surveys for white-clawed crayfish were undertaken during 2018 to refine this impact assessment and confirm the requirements for mitigation for this species. Where access allowed, surveys to determine the suitability of aquatic features for white clawed crayfish were undertaken in May and June 2018. Where features were considered suitable for white-clawed crayfish, further surveys including manual search and trapping was undertaken during August and September 2018. These surveys did not identify any populations of white-clawed crayfish

4.1.89 BCC stated that “An assumption has been made that there will be no residual effect on great crested newts, again with very little data available and assumptions made on population sizes. The whole route has been mapped for its habitat suitability for this species under the District Licence pilot. Use of this data should be considered to try and reduce the extent of assumptions made within the EIA chapters towards this species. Currently we do not think adequate data has been provided to fully determine the impacts on this species within the EIA”.

4.1.90 We have not simply assumed no residual effect. Again, due to lack of access at the right time of year, we were unable to complete comprehensive great crested newt surveys prior to submission of the ES (NR16). These have now been completed. By assuming presence of great crested newt in every waterbody where surveys have not been carried out, and acquiring sufficient land for the ECS, suitable mitigation including net gains in terrestrial and aquatic habitat has been provided for a ‘worst case’ impact scenario. The surveys in 2018 have now confirmed that many of the ponds which were not surveyed until 2018 did not support great crested newts and therefore the ratio of habitat gained to habitat lost will be greater than that presented in the ES (NR16). The approach to missing information for great crested newt is detailed in Vol 2i Chapter 9 paragraph 9.4.86, and has been informed by known population sizes and distribution of great crested newts in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

4.1.91 Discussions have been held with Natural England regarding use of the District Licence data. These data do not cover the whole route, as Cherwell district is not included in the extent of the mapping. It was also confirmed to the Alliance that the mapping of habitat suitability was based on assumptions with no field surveys undertaken. As such the data did not provide any more certainty on the presence or absence of great crested newt populations in waterbodies where no surveys have been undertaken. We therefore did not take the risk of down-grading our assumptions of great crested newt presence on the basis of the District License data, and I am confident that our proposals represent a robust basis on which to mitigate any impacts on great crested newt.

4.1.92 BCC state “Residual effects on barn owls have been acknowledged but securing the mitigation required is not adequately set out and needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way. Engaging the services of the Bucks Owl and Raptor Group will be the most appropriate way forward for this species.“

4.1.93 Compensation to address the loss of nest sites for barn owl will be provided a minimum of 3km from EWR2 boundary where possible to do so, as explained in paragraph 9.6.63 of Chapter 9 of volume 2i of the ES (NR16). As such at this stage of the assessment it is not possible to provide exact locations of where the compensatory boxes will be provided, hence the reporting of a significant negative residual


78

effect to barn owl during construction and operation phases of EWR2. A mitigation strategy is being developed by the Alliance, which will include liaison with Bucks Owl and Raptor Group and HS2, to ensure that mitigation for the two schemes is aligned and will be the most appropriate way forward for this species.

4.1.94 BCC state “Level of data provided within this consultation is not adequate to assess the residual effects towards bats, for example the activity surveys have not been completed on the existing bridge spans or trees with PRF along the line, so how can it be assumed that there are no important rare populations. No crossing or transect surveys have been carried so the impact of the line can not be fully determined. The mitigation measures provided are not fine tuned to the actual requirements of the populations. “

4.1.95 The ES (NR16) assumes that important or rare bat populations could be present. Vol 2i Chapter 9 Table 9.14 Nature conservation evaluation provides details on bat populations of up to National importance recorded within the study area for EWR2. Where not of National importance, many of these populations are considered to be of importance at a Regional or County scale. The ES (NR16) assesses the potential impacts to these populations, commits to providing mitigation, and where appropriate determines the significance of any residual effects.

4.1.96 Further surveys for bats were undertaken between May and October 2018. These surveys are as follows:

a) * Initial assessments of habitats within the study area to determine the need for further surveys;

b) * Aerial tree climbing surveys;

c) * Emergence re-entry surveys of suitable trees, buildings and bridges;

d) * Activity surveys up to 1km from the existing railway;

e) * Radiotracking of bats caught on the existing railway, to determine their roost locations and their use of the railway;

f) * Crossing point surveys;

g) * Static detector surveys.

4.1.97 The results of the surveys and the refinement of the impact assessment were reported in the Further Environmental Information report and revised Technical Appendices in November 2018.

4.1.98 BCC stated “Otter Mammal passes are supported where identified. Again the incomplete survey data for this species is questioned.“

4.1.99 As detailed in Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.6.15, the risk to otter during operation of the railway has been identified based on the type of watercourse affected, the earthworks design and the likelihood of watercourses flooding. As otter have been assumed to be using all watercourse networks in the study area (Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.4.45), the incomplete data set for this species has not affected this assessment. Further survey work in 2018 has confirmed this assumption. This risk has been identified on several watercourses including the unnamed tributary of Padbury Brook (AF172), unnamed tributary of Loughton Brook (AF281) and unnamed tributary of Horwood Brook (AF259) along Route Section 2B; Langford Brook (AF006) and Launton Brook (AF040) along Route Section 2A; and at two unnamed tributaries of Fleet Marston Brook (AF664, AF676) in Route Section 2E. Where otter passage is deemed likely to be compromised during spate events, measures to provide safe mammal passage have been incorporated in the environmental design measures detailed in Chapter 2, Volume 2i and Appendix 9.13 in Volume 3 of the ES (NR16). The provision of safe passage requires detailed design but will comprise either a mammal ledge on the associated watercourse structure or where other design requirements do not allow this, an appropriately positioned offline dry mammal pass feature (e.g. dry pipe) which is accessible and unaffected during spate conditions (typically located within 50 m and not more than 100 m from the watercourse) will be provided. Mammal ledge designs will be positioned above the flow conditions of a 100-year flood event. Where such features are provided, the requirement for otter proof fencing to encourage safe use of the features will be determined during detailed design. Such fencing and mitigation will follow the specifications within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance.

4.1.100 BCC stated “Invertebrates This is an incomplete survey data set for these species. For example glow worms have not been included for assessment.”

4.1.101 Further surveys for terrestrial invertebrates were undertaken between May and September 2018. This included surveys for black and brown hairstreak and wood white butterflies, and glow worms. The results of the surveys and the refinement of the impact assessment were reported in the revised Technical Appendix 9.12 v2 (in Part II of the FEI (NR47)) of the ES (NR16) and are summarised in section 3.4 of my evidence above.


79

4.1.102 BCC stated “There are too many large gaps in survey data relating to most species and habitats listed as important ecological features. Therefore we do not feel a robust EIA has been finalised.”

4.1.103 Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.3.73 of the ES (NR16) stated that we would refine our impact assessment and mitigation strategy based on the further surveys completed in 2018. This was published in November 2018 as the revised Technical Appendices and the Further Environmental Information Report.

4.1.104 BCC stated “It has regularly been requested that a general analysis of wildlife connectivity is undertaken to ensure populations of wildlife species (including currently common species) do not become isolated and extinct. This has not been included.”

4.1.105 Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.3 details those species that may be affected by operation of EWR2 including loss of connectivity and the barrier effect of the railway. These species are bats, otter and birds including barn owl. Mitigation is detailed to address impacts to these species, and where the mitigation doesn’t address the impact a residual effect is reported. Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.3 also justifies why the operation of EWR2 is not expected to affect other importance ecological features such as white-clawed crayfish, water vole, great crested newt, reptiles and invertebrates. The ES (NR16) reports a temporary loss of connectivity during construction for certain species such as great crested newts (Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.5.139) and reptiles (Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.5.152) that are more reliant on the existing railway as a means of moving through the landscape, and where suitable alterative habitat outside of the scheme boundary is not prevalent. The size of the ECS and the habitats created within them are considered viable to support populations of such species during this temporary loss of connectivity. Once construction is complete, the habitats created on the railway embankments will provide long-term connectivity in addition to that provided by the ECS. Although the ECS have been designed to compensate for impacts to habitats and notable species, these sites will also provide suitable habitat in the long-term for more common species such as amphibians and small mammals, as well as rarer species not protected by any legislation such as hedgehog.

4.1.106 The Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS) are located to provide “stepping stones” through the landscape for terrestrial species affected by EWR2. Volume 3 Appendix 9.13 provides details on how ECS improve connectivity on a landscape scale by linking and complementing existing features such as LWS, BNS, or other features such as woodland blocks or hedgerow networks. Figure 9.24 of the Further Environmental Information Report illustrates this.

4.1.107 BCC stated “Only ponds within designated sites appear to have been surveyed for their habitats.”

4.1.108 Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.4.18 details that there are 87 standing water bodies within the Standing Water Bodies Field Survey Study Area (≤ 50 m from the Scheme Boundary). Sixteen ponds have been taken forwarded to assessment, of which 14 have been screened as requiring Predictive System for MultiMetrics (PSYM) pond survey. These are as follows: * Route Section 2A – AF030, AF039, AF048, AF051, AF059, AF097 and AF121 * Route Section 2B – AF144, AF167, AF284 and AF292 * Route Section 2D – AF406 and AF407 * Route Section 2E – AF659 The screening methodology is detailed on Volume 3 Appendix 9.2 Section 2.2. No PSYM surveys were completed prior to submission of the ES (NR16). These surveys were undertaken, where access allowed during 2018 and the results of these surveys were used to refine the impact assessment and confirm the mitigation requirements for ponds affected by EWR2. The results of the surveys and the refinement of the impact assessment are provided in Technical Appendix 9.

4.1.109 BCC stated “There is a lack of information provided for Adders which were found on the redundant sections of tract during previous EWR surveys. Adders are now a rare species within the County “.

4.1.110 Volume 2i Chapter 9, Table 9.11 provided details on the adder populations recorded in Route Section 2B (the redundant sections of track). Volume 2i Chapter 9, Table 9.14 detailed the nature conservation importance of adder populations potentially affected by EWR2. Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.5.157 confirms that reptiles will be removed from the Scheme Area prior to any construction works starting in that location using a combination of artificial refugia, and reptile-proof fencing where required. Further details on adder is provided in Volume 2ii Chapter 9, Route Section 2B and Technical Appendix 9.9. Further surveys carried out in 2018 did not record adders within the Scheme boundary.  Despite the absence of adder in the 2018 field surveys, taking a precautionary approach based on the 2013 surveys and desk study records, adder is assumed to be present in very low numbers in Route Section 2B.

4.1.111 BCC stated “LWS / BNS We do not think there has been adequate survey and subsequent mitigation in place to maintain the function of LWS / BNS that are being impacted by the EWR.”

4.1.112 Since the ES (NR16) was submitted, further botanical surveys have been undertaken in LWS and BNS likely to be affected by EWR2. Surveys for notable species such as reptiles, invertebrates and birds have also been undertaken, where these LWS and BNS are situated within the appropriate study area for such species. The results of the surveys and the refinement of the impact assessment were published in the


80

Further Environmental Information Report in November 2018. Where these survey data were not available for the ES (NR16), LWS and BNS citations were used to inform our assessment and determine the significance of any effects on these sites resulting from EWR2.

4.1.113 BCC stated “Habitats .Open mosaic habitat on clay are an important feature in this area and provide key habitat for invertebrates, reptiles and plants. This should be a feature which is replaced. An assessment of loss of Habitat versus gain has been provided on an area basis rather than by use of a recognised biodiversity accounting mechanism which includes a valuation of habitat. This is essential to enable EWR to demonstrate net biodiversity gains.”

4.1.114 The ECS will represent a similar open mosaic habitat which will provide compensation for the loss of this type of habitat. The proposals for the management of these habitats is set out in Volume 3 Appendix 9.13 of the ES (NR16). As described above, we are not able to deliver a net gain strictly in accordance with a recognised accounting mechanism if such additional land is not otherwise needed for mitigation of the impacts of EWR2. We have now provided the more information on the habitat losses and gains in Technical Appendix 9.16, and in Appendix B of my evidence.

4.1.115 BCC stated “In its current status the EIA submitted is not considered to be in sufficient detail for the applicant to demonstrate the proposed railway will not adversely impact on ecological features. It appears the submission has been made prematurely. It has been based on an incomplete data set. Currently we would advise the two councils to object to the development on this basis.

4.1.116 The purpose of an ES under the EIA Directive, or the TWA Rules is to identify the “main, significant environmental effects of the Scheme”. The ES (NR16) does this. The further surveys carried out in 2018 allowed the assessment to be revised where appropriate and the mitigation proposals to be modified, for example, where there was no need for white-clawed crayfish translocations where none were present. I therefore do not agree that the ES (NR16) was premature simply because there was ongoing work to improve our assessment of one topic. The ES (NR16) does not make any claim that the “proposed railway will not impact on ecological features”. A comprehensive assessment of the features potentially impacted was provided, along with robust mitigation proposals and an assessment of residual impacts.


81

Objection 233 (Milton Keynes) 4.1.117 I have responded to the main points of Milton Keynes Council’s objection below.

Lack of Field Surveys (Generally, and in relation to points made on Ponds, GCN, Bats, Invertebrates and Otters)

4.1.118 It is acknowledged in the ES (NR16) that not all ecological surveys had been completed prior to submission. During the process of completing the ES (NR16), all previous ecological survey data that had been collected on behalf of Network Rail and the Alliance were reviewed. Only where data were verified as being collected according to good practice, by ecologists deemed to be competent (using Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management guidelines), were those results included in the ES (NR16). Where field surveys were not completed, or previous data were not included, the assessment in the ES (NR16) was based on a reasonable precautionary approach (considering existing knowledge of the ecological feature, citing supplementary information where deemed relevant and necessary, and applying professional judgment). Recent and, where appropriate, historic background records, publicly available aerial imagery, the known local distribution of species (or species groups), survey results from adjacent areas, and the suitability of habitats present within the appropriate Study Areas have all been used to inform the existing baseline. In no case has a presumption been made that a protected species known to be in the area is absent from EWR2, or that there could be no effect upon it.

4.1.119 This precautionary approach was used to identify and assess the main significant effects which EWR2 is likely to have on biodiversity. Further details on the approach to missing information for each ecology feature (designated site, habitat or species) are provided in Appendices 9.1 to 9.12 in Volume 3. Subject to access, surveys were then undertaken throughout 2018 to inform detailed design and to refine our assessment of impacts. These surveys were written up as revised Technical Appendices to the Environmental Statement, and any revisions to our assessment of impacts was provided in the Further Environmental Information Report.




4.1.122 In accordance with Government’s 25-year plan, the DfT and East West Rail Company have confirmed their aspiration for EWR2 to achieve a net positive gain. The powers sought under the Order are those required to deliver the Order Scheme and measures that are required to mitigate the associated environmental effects. Network Rail will, however, support the DfT and East West Rail Company in working with landowners and other stakeholders to explore opportunities to provide gains in biodiversity at a local (i.e. not necessarily a Project-wide) level. The delivery of any such biodiversity gains would be in addition to the mitigation measures reported in the ES (NR16) and secured by the Order.

In perpetuity management of ECS 4.1.123 The concept of “in perpetuity” is difficult to define in any development project, and typically periods of 25-

30 years are used in planning to condition long term management. Thirty years has been suggested by NE as a typical time frame to manage habitats in the long-term for the benefit of the species affected by EWR2 and this requirement has been included in the draft Orders. EWR2 therefore includes sufficient land, under control of Network Rail in the long term, to fully mitigate the impacts anticipated. Where additional gain can be delivered at no further public cost, Network Rail will take the opportunity to deliver further enhancements, either on land taken for EWR2, or by landowner agreement.


82

SuDS 4.1.124 Enough land has been included in the orders to offset all impacts on aquatic habitats and species through

specific ecological compensation areas. SuDS are designed primarily for managing drainage and are not included in this calculation. Any further ecological benefits that develop in the SuDS facilities will be additional and represent net gain.

Badgers 4.1.125 The results of badger surveys have not been included in the Environmental Statement as badgers are not

a nature conservation issue, being protected for welfare reasons. Badger surveys, including baitmarking surveys to identify territory boundaries, have been carried out. Where necessary, setts will be closed and badgers moved to alternative natural or artificial setts under licence to Natural England.

Barn Owls 4.1.126 Compensation to address the loss of nest sites for barn owl will be provided a minimum of 3km from the

scheme boundary where possible to do so. As such at this stage of the assessment it is not possible to provide exact locations of where the compensatory boxes will be provided, hence the reporting of a significant negative residual effect to barn owl during construction and operation phases of EWR2.

4.1.127 A mitigation strategy is being developed by the Alliance, which will include liaison with Bucks Owl and Raptor Group and HS2, to ensure that mitigation for the two Projects is aligned and will be the most appropriate way forward for this species.

Connectivity 4.1.128 Volume 2i Chapter 9 Section 9.3 details those species that may be affected by operation of EWR2.

Measures to mitigate any severance impacts include provision of mammal crossing (Figure 9.14) and “hopovers” for bats, as well as habitat creation on both sides of the railway line.


83

OBJ/241 – Central Bedfordshire Council 4.1.129 In their objection, as well as welcoming several aspects of the ecological design, Central Bedfordshire

Council made a number of specific points relating to ecological issues. I deal with each of these in turn below.

4.1.130 Central Bedfordshire Council commented that they were disappointed that net gain was described as aspirational and the ES (NR16) did not look beyond mitigation, despite the expectations of the NPPF.

4.1.131 With regard to the delivery of a net positive outcome for biodiversity, this remains an aspiration of EWR2. The mechanism for delivery of this gain is not yet confirmed and may be as part of wider projects as, whilst Network Rail is under an obligation to mitigate all of the impacts of EWR2, it does not consider that there is any statutory or policy basis for it to exercise compulsory purchase powers to achieve a net gain. As such, an Order made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 may include powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for mitigation measures required for EWR2, but not for land solely to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. For this reason, we are not able to acquire additional land that would allow us to deliver a net gain in “biodiversity units” according to established metrics. The EWR Alliance has, however, calculated the current biodiversity accounting position of EWR2 using the Network Rail, Defra and Warwickshire metrics, see Appendix B of my evidence. This currently demonstrates a shortfall of some 440 biodiversity units. The East West Rail Alliance has, at the time of writing, been commissioned to research how this shortfall, plus additional units to deliver a net gain could be delivered by working in partnership with local stakeholders.

4.1.132 The Council advised EWR2 of the location of an active barn owl roost which would require mitigation. This is not included on the maps as these show our survey results, not existing desk study data. No impact would be expected on this roost and no further mitigation, over and above that proposed in the ES (NR16), would be required.

4.1.133 The Council expressed concern regarding EWR’s proposal to translocate mature trees where practicable, suggesting that this was unlikely to occur. EWR2 has a strong commitment to this mitigation which forms an important part of EWR2’s strategy for mitigating impacts on bats and other wildlife and all reasonable steps will be taken to achieve this.

4.1.134 The Council queried the use of topsoil on embankments, suggesting that this would not be acceptable for areas of, for example, wildflower habitat. This concern is noted and it is agreed that there is a balance to achieve between providing a suitable growing medium for trees and shrubs which are needed to establish quickly in order to provide screening for properties, and cover and habitat for animals, and where a nutrient poor soil would be beneficial in order to, for example, establish open mosaic habitats of value to invertebrates. The requirement for topsoil on individual sections of EWR2 will be reviewed at the detailed landscape design stage.

4.1.135 The Council expressed concerns that Marston Road overbridge would impact on barn owl foraging areas to the west and potentially increase collision risks. They also queried whether there were any opportunities for reptile habitat on the south side of the embankment in this location.

4.1.136 There were very few areas of good barn owl foraging habitat in this section of EWR2 and no specific mitigation is proposed in this location. If at the detailed design stage it is considered that further mitigation would be required in this location, this would be as set out in the ES (NR16) with planting designed to reduce the likelihood of barn owls foraging close to the potential collision black spot. No specific areas of reptile habitat creation are proposed here, but the track-side habitat would be of incidental value for reptiles along this part of EWR2.

4.1.137 The Council asked whether adequate use was being made of flood compensation areas to benefit great crested newts. The flood compensation areas exist to compensate for development in the floodplain and will be dry other than in rare flood events. For this reason they are not designed as wetland habitat and will not be of value to great crested newts. They have not been included in any calculations of habitat loss and gain for newts.


84

OBJ/242 – Natural England (Statement of Case REP 10) 4.1.138 Natural England’s Statement of Case raises a number of issues relating to the ecological impacts of

EWR2. These have been discussed with Natural England at a number of consultation meetings and we will continue to work with them to resolve their concerns. Several of these matters have been resolved to a greater or lesser extent through the provision of additional survey information, reported in the Further Environmental Information, and described earlier in my evidence but a brief response to each of their points is provided below.

Bats 4.1.139 Natural England’s comments on the need for further survey information on the population size, distribution

and movement of bats within the zone of influence of EWR2 are based on the original Environmental Statement which recognised that survey work was still in progress. The Further Environmental Information report, published on 16th November 2018 provided the requested maps showing the flight lines and crossing points for each species. Natural England have since requested further information to assist them in coming to a view about licensing EWR2 and the EWR Alliance is producing this at the time of writing.

Great Crested Newts 4.1.140 The survey work for great crested newts was carried out in 2018 and results are provided in the Further

Environmental Information report. Several of the ponds assumed in the ES (NR16) to support a medium population of great crested newts have been scoped out or have been found not to support newts. Two ponds were found to have a large population. Overall there are fewer ponds supporting great crested newts along EWR2 than assumed by the precautionary approach in the ES (NR16) and the mitigation proposals are more than sufficient. Natural England have since requested further information to assist them in coming to a view about licensing EWR2 and we are producing this at the time of writing.

Otters 4.1.141 Otter surveys carried out in 2018 have confirmed the assumption that otters are present on all of the

watercourses in the zone of influence. No further holt sites have been identified within the footprint of EWR2 and hence there is no change to the mitigation proposed in the ES (NR16). This is set out in section 3 of my evidence. Natural England have since requested further information to assist them in coming to a view about licensing EWR2 and we are producing this at the time of writing.

Hazel Dormice

4.1.142 Hazel dormouse surveys were completed in 2018. No signs of dormice were recorded anywhere on EWR2, and hence no mitigation will be required. Mitigation put in place for other habitats and species would incidentally benefit hazel dormice, and a precautionary approach will be taken to scrub and woodland clearance to protect dormice should they colonise EWR2 in future.

Water Vole 4.1.143 Water vole surveys were carried out in 2018, and no signs of the species have been recorded in the zone

of influence of EWR2. No mitigation or compensation is therefore currently proposed, although a precautionary approach will continue to be adopted.

White-clawed crayfish 4.1.144 Surveys for white-clawed crayfish were completed in 2018 and so signs of the species have been

recorded within the Zone of Influence of EWR2. No mitigation or compensation is therefore proposed.

Barn owl 4.1.145 Due to access and health and safety constraints, comprehensive barn owl surveys have not been

completed for EWR2. The approach to the protection of barn owls is set out in the FEI (NR47). A very precautionary approach has been taken, assuming an impact of up to County level. This impact would be avoided as far as possible by the landscape planting of EWR2 which would not offer valuable foraging habitat for barn owls, and would encourage barn owls to cross EWR2 at height. Residual impacts on barn owls would be offset by the creation of barn owl nesting sites at a distance from EWR2.


85

Badgers 4.1.146 Surveys for badgers have been completed and comprehensive mitigation proposals developed. This is

not included in the ES (NR16) as it is a matter of legal compliance, rather than a conservation issue and we have limited the ES (NR16) to the main significant environmental effects. The findings of the badger surveys have been shared with Natural England in advance of the Public Inquiry in a confidential badger strategy docuement.

4.1.147 The locations of all artificial badger setts have not yet been finalised as in some cases it would be preferable to locate them further away from EWR2 and these sites would be agreed with landowners on a case by case basis. If Network Rail is unable to reach agreement with neighbouring landowners it would be possible to accommodate the badger setts within the boundary of EWR2.

Species Mitigation and Compensation 4.1.148 Mitigation is proposed for all impacts above the level of incidental mortality for all affected species.

Appendix 9.13 was updated and re-issued in November 2018. Specific seasonal or diurnal restrictions on working will be advised in the draft CEMP at detailed design stage and will be agreed with statutory consultees.

Sheephouse Wood SSSI 4.1.149 Natural England states that the Sheephouse Wood SSSI may be impacted by both the construction and

operational stages of EWR2. This TWAO does not seek permission for the construction works in the HS2 interface area, which are included in the HS2 scheme and were authorised by the HS2 Act. The ES (NR16) covers two specific aspects: the operation of EWR2 in this location; and the extension of the proposed bat mitigation structure being constructed by HS2 and does not re-assess aspects relating to the construction of the line already covered by HS2.

4.1.150 In its Statement of Case, Natural England states that the TWAO application contains insufficient (ecological survey) information to determine the impacts on Sheephouse Wood SSSI. This was written before Network Rail published the Further Environmental Information in support of the ES (NR16) in November 2018. The FEI (NR47) provided the results of further botanical and invertebrate surveys in the HS2 interface area, including NVC surveys and specific searches for the larval food plants of invertebrates for which the SSSI is designated.

4.1.151 As set out in Section 3 of my evidence, whilst the botanical surveys did not show the edge of Sheephouse Wood adjacent to EWR2 to be of particular potential value for hairstreak butterflies, with only sparse blackthorn, mitigation measures will be implemented to enhance other local woodlands to increase their value for black hairstreak by, for example, planting blackthorn and wild plum, their larval food plants.

4.1.152 The future maintenance regime of EWR2 is not fully developed at this stage, but this would be developed further in the CEMP and handover documents for EWR2. Network Rail would be required to seek Section 28 permission from Natural England for any operations potentially damaging to the SSSI.

Ancient Woodland 4.1.153 EWR2 will not result in any loss of ancient woodland. During scoping surveys, four woodlands were

identified as having the potential to have characteristics of ancient woodland, and further investigations were undertaken to identify whether any would qualify as ancient woodland. Three of the four woodlands identified as potentially ancient in origin have since been scoped out or confirmed as not ancient by the heritage review. The woodland south of Horwood House, which was assessed as of national value on a precautionary basis, has not been confirmed by the heritage review or further botanical surveys to be ancient. The only areas of ancient woodland affected by EWR2 are Sheephouse Wood SSSI and Salden Wood LWS.




86


4.1.156 In accordance with Government’s 25-year plan, the DfT and East West Rail Company have confirmed their aspiration for EWR2 to achieve a net positive gain. The powers sought under the Order are those required to deliver the Order Scheme and measures that are required to mitigate the associated environmental effects. Network Rail will, however, support the DfT and East West Rail Company in working with landowners and other stakeholders to explore opportunities to provide gains in biodiversity at a local (i.e. not necessarily a Project-wide) level. The delivery of any such biodiversity gains would be in addition to the mitigation measures reported in the ES (NR16) and secured by the Order.

Monitoring and Maintenance 4.1.157 Monitoring and maintenance is detailed in Chapter 2 at 2.4.86. This sets out a five-year commitment to

post-construction monitoring and a thirty-year maintenance period which would be secured by condition.

Cumulative Impacts 4.1.158 The cumulative impacts of HS2, EWR and the Greatmoor sidings projects are set out by HS2 and have

been considered by Natural England. The only additional work in the interface area to be carried out by EWR and not previously consulted upon by HS2 is the extension of the bat mitigation structure.


87

REP/6 Aylesbury Vale District Council 4.1.159 The main aspect of their representation which Aylesbury Vale District Council considered could not be

addressed by condition and remained outstanding was matters relating to ecology. Their response on ecology matters was made jointly with Buckinghamshire County Council and the points have been addressed above under the response to Buckinghamshire County Council.


88

OBJ/22 Kier Property Group 4.1.160 Kier Property Group requested further information on why a land parcel in their ownership south of

Whaddon Road was required by EWR2.

4.1.161 This land parcel is required to provide linear connectivity for locally and nationally rare bats including Barbastelle, between the blocks of woodland to the west of Whaddon Road, including Salden Wood LWS and the habitats to the east of Whaddon Road including Blue Lagoon LNR. This site was selected as it is close to the existing vegetated rail corridor and appears to be already partly vegetated with numerous trees shown along its length on aerial imagery. EWR2 proposes to enhance this corridor with mature and semi-mature planting to provide a hedgerow to compensate for the loss of woodland and scrub habitat on the existing railway, which is used by bats to commute west to east and vice versa. It is not the intention of EWR2 to sever farming land. With the agreement of the landowner, EWR2 will provide permanent access gates at suitable locations within the new hedgerow to allow continued use of the fields to the north and south of the hedgerow.


89

OBJ/27 Chandler Ray 4.1.162 This objection related to land taken for the construction of Ecological Compensation Site (ECS) B9.

4.1.163 This is an area of 1.1ha of improved grassland and tall ruderal vegetation. It is proposed to construct ponds with marginal planting, open mosaic habitat, lowland meadow, and native species-rich hedgerows. Reptile embankments and hibernacula and an artificial badger sett are also proposed. It is proposed for the translocation of great crested newts and reptiles. Once established it is anticipated that this site would support great crested newts, reptiles, birds, badgers, bats and terrestrial invertebrates such as hairstreak butterflies.

4.1.164 ECS B9 is located north of an unnamed tributary of the Claydon Brook. It is immediately north of an ecological compensation site associated with a housing development east of Furze Lane and would complement that site allowing for further expansion of the species it supports.


90

OBJ/88 & OBJ/89 Lower Salden Farm 4.1.165 This objection stated that their client “ currently enjoys access to land across the railway line at the

Weasels Lodge level crossing which is to be closed as part of the scheme. The alternative access proposed is unacceptable as it is by way of a very long detour over the new overbridge, then along Salden Lane and around Salden Wood via parcel number 0910, 0911, 0916, 0917 to our clients severed land. Such a detour is unacceptable. Our client has proposed an alternative route to run parallel with the existing railway lane on the northern boundary of Salden Wood, however this proposal has been ignored by Network Rail. Our client objects to the proposals for the detour as stated on the schedule and plans and requires the alternative route as proposed to Network Rail, when our client met with them in 2017 to be adopted. This alternative route run parallel to the existing railway on the edge of Salden Wood.”

4.1.166 The alternative route proposed by the landowner has been considered, however, unfortunately this route has been rejected due to likely significant impacts on Salden Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS). This is an ecological feature of national importance for nature conservation, containing irreplaceable ancient woodland habitat which supports the nationally rare Barbastelle bat, and brown and black hairstreak butterflies. The LWS also supports other locally rare species of bats, birds and invertebrates.

4.1.167 The land to the north of Salden Wood LWS is part of the rail corridor and is required permanently for engineering purposes to construct EWR2. This includes land required for drainage and earthworks required for the operation of the railway. As the permanent engineering boundary is adjacent to the boundary of Salden Wood LWS, the proposed route for the access track would have had to cut through the ancient woodland of Salden Wood LWS.

4.1.168 As set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, developments that have an impact on ancient woodland habitat should be refused planning permission unless the impact cannot be avoided and the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of the ancient woodland. In this instance there is an obvious way of avoiding the impact to Salden Wood LWS by providing the permanent access track around the outskirts of the woodland.

4.1.169 The objection goes on to state that “Parcel 0930 on the plan shows a route to be taken through our client’s land, as part of the scheme, on an unrestricted basis to acquire land. This route severs or clients land which lies to the east of Salden Wood. It appears that this parcel is to create an access route or footpath (possibly a public footpath) where one does not already exist. Our client objects to the encumbrance which will sever our clients land and provide no amenable alternative access have a significant impact on their ability to farm the land going forward. If access is required, then this can follow the route parallel to the existing railway line as proposed in the paragraph above.”

4.1.170 Parcel 0930 is required to provide connectivity for locally and nationally rare bats including Barbastelle, between Salden Wood LWS and the woodland blocks and hedgerows to the east. Parcel 0930 was selected as it is close to the existing vegetated rail corridor and appears to be already partly vegetated with numerous trees shown along its length on aerial imagery. EWR2 proposes to enhance this corridor with mature and semi-mature planting to provide a hedgerow to compensate for the loss of woodland and scrub habitat on the existing railway, which is used by bats to commute west to east and vice versa. Although many bat species will not cross large gaps in linear corridors, it is not the intention of EWR2 to sever these parcels of land. With the agreement of the landowner, EWR2 will provide permanent access gates at suitable locations within the new hedgerow to allow continued use of the fields to the north and south of the hedgerow.


91

OBJ/114 - Trustees of Woburn Estates 4.1.171 The objection states that the “extent of the land in our opinion is far excess of that which should be

reasonably required for the improvement to the railway line as described. It appears that substantial enclosures are being acquired for no apparent purpose and we wish to continue this objection until a satisfactory explanation is provided. Furthermore there appears to be a parallel proposal in relation to the temporary use of land also owned by our clients extending to a further 30,816 sq m, 3.082 hectares.”

4.1.172 The land in plot 1171 is required for an Ecological Compensation Site (ECS D2).

4.1.173 Where habitat loss is unavoidable as a result of EWR2, compensation is proposed in the form of Ecological Compensation Sites located along the length of EWR2. Each ECS has been designed to incorporate a variety of habitats including scrub, wildflower meadow, hedgerow, wetland and river enhancement, and ponds. This varies depending on the particular habitats required at each location. This will also provide habitat for translocation of protected species (where determined necessary and under licence where appropriate) and to support the recovery of species populations affected by EWR2.

4.1.174 ECS D2 is required to provide habitat for the translocation and recovery of the following protected species potentially affected by EWR2: great crested newts, reptiles, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, and bats. This will be achieved through the provision of ponds and marginal planting, lowland mixed deciduous woodland, lowland meadow, scrub, reptile hibernation sites and log piles. ECS D2 is close to an area where ponds supporting great crested newts would be lost and will therefore be used as a receptor site for the translocation of great crested newts (under a Natural England licence) as well as for the translocation of reptiles.

4.1.175 Wherever possible, subject to landowner negotiation, the ECS will be created in advance of the construction of EWR2 to allow compensatory habitats to establish. Each ECS will be subject to a 30-year maintenance and management plan as part of a legal agreement between NR and the landowner. The habitats created will be subject to appropriate maintenance and monitoring to ensure they remain suitable for a range of species.


92

OBJ/121 – Barretts of Aspley Limited Directors Pension Scheme and Simon George Cooper Hill

4.1.176 This is an objection to the compulsory purchase of land (parcels 882 and 884) which states that there is insufficient information within the published documents to explain the necessity for this scale of land take to ensure the viability of the Scheme.

4.1.177 Where habitat loss due to the construction of EWR2 is unavoidable, compensation is proposed in the form of Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS). Each ECS has been designed to incorporate a variety of habitats including scrub, wildflower meadow, hedgerow, reptile hibernacula, wetland, riverine enhancement, species-rich grassland and ponds based on the mitigation requirement in each location. ECS provide habitat for translocation of protected species and to support the recovery of species populations potentially affected by EWR2, such as great crested newts and reptiles.

4.1.178 Land parcels 882 and 884 form ECS B20, the main purpose of which is to provide permanent lowland mixed deciduous woodland, to compensate for the loss of 56.7 hectares of broadleaved woodland habitat along the existing railway corridor. ECS B20 has been sited adjacent to Salden Wood, to complement the ancient woodland habitat in the Local Wildlife Site and contribute towards one of the five key targets of the Whaddon Chase Biodiversity Opportunity Area (woodland – restoration, management and creation). The creation of the woodland, along with hedgerows and scrub planting will provide compensatory habitat for the nationally rare Barbastelle bat and black and brown hairstreak butterflies, all of which have been recorded within or adjacent to Salden Wood.

4.1.179 ECS B20 will also provide a suitable location as a receptor site to translocate populations of great crested newt (under a licence from Natural England), grass snake and common lizard, all of which have been recorded using the railway embankment habitat in this location.


93

OBJ/147 - W & JA Hunter Partnership and LaSalle ECS E4 4.1.180 This objection states that “The Draft Order also provides for the permanent acquisition of large areas of

our clients' land for environmental mitigation, for the acquisition of rights over our clients' land for maintenance purposes and for the temporary possession of our clients' land. The Applicant has not discussed why it requires such powers over our clients' land. Without further specific explanation from the Applicant as to why this land is required together with the reasons for their location, our clients object to these aspects of the Draft Order, subject to satisfactory agreement on these points being reached. Land parcels 1465 and 1456 on the deposited plans refer to environmental mitigation. We hope that the Applicant will be able to confirm whether this land will be subject to permanent acquisition. Our preference is for the land to be acquired temporarily, subject to a claim for diminution in value. We have discussed with the Applicant the possibility of re-designing land parcels 1454 and 1456 to enable any land required for environmental mitigation to adjoin the woodland shelter belt located to the west.”

4.1.181 The land take is required for an Ecological Compensation Site (ECS E4), but Network Rail s working closely with the landowner to agree an alternative that can provide the same ecological benefits.

4.1.182 Where habitat loss is unavoidable as a result of EWR2, compensation will be provided in the form of ECS located along the length of EWR2. Each ECS has been designed to incorporate a variety of habitats including scrub, wildflower meadow, hedgerow, wetland and river enhancement, and ponds. This varies depending on the particular habitats required at each location. This will also provide habitat for translocation of protected species (where determined necessary and under licence where appropriate) and to support the recovery of species populations affected by EWR2.

4.1.183 ECS E4 is required to provide habitat for the translocation and recovery of the following protected species potentially affected by EWR2: reptiles, birds, terrestrial invertebrates, and bats. This will be achieved through the provision of hedgerows, scrub, lowland meadow, reptile hibernation sites and log piles. These newly created habitats will help compensate for the loss of 4.9km of hedgerows, 3 hectares of grassland and 16 hectares of scrub during the construction of Route Section 2E. The remainder of this loss will be compensated for through the creation of habitat in ECS E3 and along the landscaped embankments of the railway post-construction.

4.1.184 Wherever possible, subject to landowner negotiation, the ECS will be created in advance of the construction of EWR2 to allow compensatory habitats to establish. Each ECS will be subject to a 30-year maintenance and management plan as part of a legal agreement between NR and the landowner. The habitats created will be subject to appropriate maintenance and monitoring to ensure they remain suitable for a range of species.


94

OBJ156 (O&H) 4.1.185 This objection states that “Network Rail proposes that Ecological Mitigation Site D3 is established on 0.4

ha O&H's land to the rear of existing properties which front onto Marston Road. This land would be permanently acquired for this purpose. O&H object to this proposed use. The proposed location for Ecological Mitigation Site is currently in use as the route of a permissive bridleway which extends from Marston Road to Station Road at Millbrook Railway Station. It is not clear if this context and the potential incompatibility between the proposed use and its current use has been considered in the Acquiring Authority 's selection of this land. The degree to which the Acquiring Authority has considered reasonable alternative sites is also not clear. It is O&H's view that it is likely that suitable alternative locations could be identified particularly given that it is intended that this Ecological Mitigation Site would seek to compensate for the loss of pond habitat along the whole extent of Route Section 20.”

4.1.186 Network Rail is working with this landowner to resolve their objection, but I have set out below the reasons that ECS D3 is needed. Where habitat loss due to the construction of EWR2 is unavoidable, compensation will be provided in the form of Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS). Each ECS has been designed to incorporate a variety of habitats including scrub, wildflower meadow, hedgerow, reptile hibernacula, wetland, riverine enhancement, species-rich grassland and ponds based on the mitigation requirement in each location. ECS provide habitat for translocation of protected species and to support the recovery of species populations potentially affected by EWR2.

4.1.187 ECS D3 will provide a bat house to compensate for the loss of Chuffa Cottage, a building within the Scheme Boundary that has potential to support roosting bats. Following the precautionary principal, due to a lack of access to undertake appropriate surveys of the cottage, it has been assumed to support roosting bats. The loss of such a roost requires suitable compensation to be provided to meet the needs of planning policy and European legislation. ECS D3 will also provide a location to create ponds and woodland to provide habitat for bats, birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates all of which will be impacted by EWR2.

4.1.188 ECS D3 would not result in the loss of the bridleway. The access off Marston Road has been included in the Scheme Boundary to guarantee that EWR2 can create the required habitats and would not result in the loss of habitats within this part of the ECS or the loss of permanent access for the bridleway.

4.1.189 The objection goes on to say that “Network Rail proposes that Ecological Compensation Site D4 is established on 3.9 ha of O&H's land at Kempston Hardwick (eastern part of Plot 1300). This land would be permanently acquired for this purpose. O&H object to this proposed use. Appendix 9.13 of the ES (NR16) indicates that this land will be used for watercourse enhancement, lowland mixed deciduous woodland planting and bat mitigation. It is not clear why such a large land take is required to meet the mitigation requirements of the proposals”.

4.1.190 Where habitat loss due to the construction of EWR2 is unavoidable, compensation will be provided in the form of Ecological Compensation Sites (ECS). Each ECS has been designed to incorporate a variety of habitats including scrub, wildflower meadow, hedgerow, reptile hibernacula, wetland, riverine enhancement, species-rich grassland and ponds based on the mitigation requirement in each location. ECS provide habitat for translocation of protected species and to support the recovery of species populations potentially affected by EWR2.

4.1.191 ECS D4 is only 1.3 hectares in size, the remainder of the 3.9 hectares referred to by O&H is the footprint of construction compound D2, and hence will only be taken on a temporary basis. The construction works in Route Section 2D will result in the loss of 3.4 hectares of woodland and 4.1 hectares of scrub is important habitat for many species of bats, reptiles, great crested newts, birds and terrestrial invertebrate. The works will also result in temporary and permanent impacts to several watercourses including Elstow Brook and Broughton Brook. The habitats to be created in ECS D4 will compensate for some of this loss, with ECS D1, D4 and the landscaped embankments post construction compensating for the remainder.


95

OBJ183 – Manor Farm 4.1.192 This objection states that “The current plans show excess land being allocated as 'permanent land to be

acquired for environmental mitigation'. Whilst our client is not against some land being allocated for this purpose they oppose the quantity of land take currently proposed. In all previous correspondence and consultation documents there is no reference to compulsory acquisition of environmental mitigation land, and yet this is raised a matter of weeks before proposed submission to the Secretary of State within the Third Round Consultation.”

4.1.193 Ecological Compensation Site A1 is 1.4 hectares in size and is located immediately north of a large area of woodland loss and therefore, once established, the lowland mixed deciduous woodland to be planted in A1 will provide compensatory habitat to replace the unavoidable woodland loss. The provision of lowland mixed deciduous woodland and an artificial otter holt on the Langford Brook will provide additional terrestrial habitats for otters. The woodland, once established, will also provide compensatory habitat for birds, terrestrial invertebrates, bats and badgers. The creation of backwaters and marginal planting on the Langford Brook will result in the enhancement of watercourses and will compensate for the minor loss in watercourse extent and availability of habitat for aquatic species. Backwater creation will aide provide fish spawning and resting sites and otter foraging areas.

4.1.194 ECS A1 is located 480 m north of Gavray Drive Meadows Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and 900 m south of Bicester Airfield LWS. ECS A1 is located between these LWS, which are both also located along the Langford Brook. ECS A1 will consequently improve connectivity for mobile species, such as birds, bats and invertebrates, between these two LWS along the Langford Brook.


96

OBJ/ 229 – Gladman Developments and OBJ/230 - Jane Elizabeth Spooner (Statement of Case OBJ/228-OBJ/231) ECS B10

4.1.195 The Statement of Case by Gladman Developments states at paragraph 23 that there is inadequate ecological justification for the land included in the Order for Ecological Compensation Site B10, stating “There is no adequate justification of, inter alia:

a) the need for ecological mitigation near Winslow;

b) the type of ecological mitigation;

c) the area of ecological mitigation either near Winslow nor generally (which appears to exceed the area said to be lost);

d) the particular location of B10.”

4.1.196 EWR2 will result in the loss of 3.7 ha of woodland and scrub on the existing railway embankments adjacent to Winslow between the A413 and Little Horwood Road. In this location, due to failure of the track drainage, the track bed is permanently flooded creating a series of shallow ephemeral ‘ponds’ and ditches (the pond habitat referred to in Appendix 9.13, Volume 3 of the ES), see Insert 1.

Insert 1 - Trackside habitats adjacent to Winslow

4.1.197 This combination of habitats is ideal for great crested newts, which are known to inhabit at least three

ponds near the railway adjacent to Winslow. Medium sized populations of great crested newts are present in three ponds which are all adjacent to each other in a block of woodland and scrub 40m north of the Scheme Boundary.

4.1.198 The woodland and scrub that would be lost in this location during construction of EWR2 equates to approximately 57% of the total suitable terrestrial habitat within 500 m of this metapopulation of great crested newts. Loss of this habitat is likely to negatively affect the favourable conservation status of this metapopulation of great crested newts in this location. This impact needs to be mitigated or compensated for to meet the requirements of UK planning policy and European legislation.

4.1.199 Network Rail has been undertaking discussions with Natural England to determine the requirements of protected species licensing for great crested newts. Although the EWR2 scheme will not result in the loss of any ‘ponds’ used for breeding great crested newts in this location, there will be a loss of terrestrial


97

habitat and potentially disruption of access to breeding ponds. As detailed in Appendix 9.13 Volume 3 of the ES (NR16), Ecological Compensation Site (ECS) B10 provides for the creation of both terrestrial habitats to compensate for the loss of the existing habitats on the railway embankments, and aquatic habitats to enhance this location for great crested newts in the long-term.

4.1.200 ECS B10 is 1.8 ha in size and will include lowland mixed deciduous woodland, lowland meadow, hedgerows, scrub, embankments, hibernacula and log piles. This habitat, along with the reinstated grassland and scrub which will be planted on the newly aligned embankments, is considered sufficient to compensate for the impacts of EWR2 on great crested newts in this location and result in a long-term positive effect. This is considered sufficient to meet both the requirements of planning policy and protected species licensing, something which Natural England will consider in its role as statutory nature conservation regulatory body for England, as part of this Transport and Works Act Order application process.

4.1.201 The location of ECS B10 is based on a number of factors, including: being adjacent to the railway in order to maintain long-term connectivity for great crested newts post construction, via trackside habitat; being close to existing great crested newt populations to form part of a functioning metapopulation; and being of a size to provide local great crested newt populations sufficient opportunity to maintain and enhance their populations. ECS B10 also provides a suitable location to translocate grass snake and common lizard, which are present in significant numbers on the existing railway and receive protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

4.1.202 The Statement of Case by Gladman Developments goes on to state that ES does not adequately consider alternatives to this landtake, stating that “It is for the promoter to provide cogent evidence that there are no alternative areas of land to perform the functions for which its compulsory acquisition is sought to be justified. The promoter has failed to provide such evidence and has failed to justify the particular proposed land take or that alternative mitigation other than mitigation land i.e. payment to protection schemes would not be viable. Further, for these reasons, the Environmental Statement is inadequate and not competently prepared in accordance in accordance with Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules.”

4.1.203 Dealing first with the suggestion that EWR2 has not followed the Rules, the 2006 Rules say the following with regard to environmental information.

“11 Environmental statements: provision of information. (1) An environmental statement submitted in connection with an application shall include— (a) a description of the project comprising information on the site, design and size of the proposed

works; (b) a description of the measures proposed to be taken in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any significant adverse effects on the environment of the proposed works; (c) the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed works are likely to have on the environment; (d) an outline of the main alternatives to the proposed works studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reason for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects; and (e) a non-technical summary of the information provided under sub-paragraphs (a) to (d”).

4.1.204 Rule 11(d) above relates to the main alternatives to the works. The requirement is to provide information on the main alternatives to the overall Scheme that have been considered. This is provided in the ES (NR16) in Chapter 3, Consideration of Alternative (Volume 2i, Project-wide).

4.1.205 In terms of ECS B10, alternative locations were considered, but due to the constraints of other committed or reasonably foreseeable future developments, as outlined below, the current location of ECS B10 is considered to be the only viable location for EWR2 to mitigate the impacts of construction. Use of land immediately to the west of ECS B10 was not considered viable as this area already provides suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newts. Use of land further west would result in any great crested newts moved to the ECS being isolated by the A413 and Great Horwood Road. Use of land to the north of WIN001 for an ECS would result in great crested newts being separated from other populations by the Horwood Brook and any future housing development (see Insert 2 below). Long-term maintenance and success of the great crested newt populations in this location rely on movement of individuals between populations to maintain genetic function and colonisation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Isolation of populations was therefore not considered a viable method of mitigating for the impacts of EWR2 on this species.


98

Insert 2 – Allocations and commitments in Winslow area


99

5 Conclusions 5.1.1 There are four significant ecological residual effects associated with EWR2: impacts on ancient woodland

and veteran trees; impacts on Local Wildlife Sites; risk of disturbance to bats through clearance of vegetation; residual operational effects on barn owls and bats. I deal with each of these below.

5.1.2 A heritage review and further NVC survey work in 2018 has not identified any areas of ancient woodland that would be directly affected by EWR2. No ancient woodland would be lost, but a small area of ancient woodland at Sheephouse Wood SSSI would be subject to increased shading as a result of the extension of the HS2 Bat Mitigation structure over the EWR line. This would be compensated by the planting of alternative habitat / larval food plants for black hairstreak butterflies and only local residual effects are anticipated on this feature of National significance. EWR2 would impact on up to 12 veteran trees. These will be retained wherever possible, but if they cannot be protected, a residual effect of County level would be anticipated. These impacts would be partially offset by habitat creation and management of woodland in the ECS.

5.1.3 Construction works in Route Section 2B will result in the permanent loss of Railway Bank by Salden Wood LWS and Waddesdon Station Complex LWS as both are within the footprint of the Scheme. Both sites are valued as being of County importance. Although these sites cannot be reinstated, compensation will be put in place through habitat creation of similar calcareous grassland in ECS B14 and B23 using translocated turves from the LWS. In time, the ECS habitats would be expected to achieve a similar conservation value.

5.1.4 Route Sections 2A and 2B are particularly valuable for foraging and commuting bats, and an assemblage of Regional importance has been recorded. In order to construct EWR2, vegetation clearance of the railway corridor would result in the removal of a significant area of habitat. This may constitute disturbance to bats and may require a licence from Natural England. In order to minimise the impacts on foraging and commuting bats, a working method is proposed where a foraging /commuting route on one or other side of the railway is always kept available for bats throughout the works. The approach will be to clear the least valuable side first and, when it is necessary to work on the retained side, to reinstate the opposite site using a number of techniques. These will include early planting on the new boundary where possible, translocation of vegetation from one side to the other, gap-filling and management of alternative flightlines outside the railway corridor, and the use of temporary fencing panels to fill gaps where needed. Whilst there may be some local effects on bats, it is intended that the function of the railway corridor as an east to west wildlife corridor is maintained throughout construction and there will be no significant residual effect. Discussions are ongoing with Natural England regarding this approach.

5.1.5 Residual operational effects through collision mortality are anticipated on barn owls as a result of EWR2. For barn owls, a worst case estimate has been predicted within the ES (NR16) due to a lack of access for surveys. In practice, mortality is likely to be lower due to the low number of train movements and the unsuitability of railway habitat as a foraging resource for barn owls. There will be some residual risk to barn owls crossing the route at certain blackspots identified in the ES (NR16), but this will be offset by the habitat enhancement through the provision of nest boxes for barn owls in the wider landscape.

5.1.6 Residual operational effects through collision mortality are anticipated on bats as a result of EWR2. Collision impacts on bats have been identified in the ES (NR16) as up to Local significance. Again this represents a worst case estimate and will be refined following further data analysis to establish the proportion of Myotis calls that are likely to be Bechstein’s bats, and more detailed collision risk modelling. Whilst it is likely that there may be some local impacts on bats, particularly in the early years of operation, it is likely that, once the proposed mitigation is established, these impacts will drop to an incidental level.

5.1.7 Solutions are being agreed with Natural England to all of the ecological impacts of EWR2 on protected species, which will allow them to determine that EWR2 can be licensed. In my professional opinion, sufficient survey information has been collected to ensure that the impacts of the EWR2 Scheme have been understood and appropriate mitigation and compensation designed. I consider that, if the mitigation measures set out in the ES (NR16) and my evidence are implemented in full, then the Scheme would fulfil its legal obligations regarding ecological issues. If Network Rail is able to secure agreement from landowners for further compensatory habitat creation, then opportunities exist to deliver biodiversity net gain.


100

6 Declarations 6.1.1 I hereby declare as follows:

(i) This proof of evidence includes all facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinions that I have expressed and that the Inquiry’s attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of that opinion.

(ii) I believe the facts that I have stated in this proof of evidence are true and that the opinions expressed are correct.

(iii) I understand my duty to the Inquiry to help it with matters within my expertise and I have complied with that duty.

Proof of Evidence of Dr Stephanie Wray...

Documents

Transcript of Proof of Evidence of Dr Stephanie Wray...