DOCSLIB.ORG

Restoration Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restoration Management Plan BIFFA WASTE SERVICES ATTLEBRIDGE LANDFILL SITE REEPHAM ROAD, ATTLEBRIDGE, NORFOLK RESTORATION MANAGEMENT PLAN October 2016 bright & associates landscape and environmental consultants CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 1.1. PREFACE ................................................................................................... 1 1.2. APPOINTMENT AND SCOPE OF WORK ................................................... 1 1.3. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................. 2 2. CURRENT SITE SITUATION ........................................................... 3 2.1. SITE REVIEW (AUGUST 2016) .................................................................. 3 2.2. AREAS 1 TO 11 .......................................................................................... 3 3. FUTURE RESTORATION MANAGEMENT ..................................... 4 DRAWINGS Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001), Current Situation (2016) and Direct Management Actions APPENDICES Appendix 1 Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan, prepared by Bright & Associates for Biffa Waste Services, December 2012 Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. PREFACE 1.1.1. Attlebridge Landfill (the Site) is located c.2.5km north-west of the village of Taverham in Norfolk and is operated by Biffa Waste Services (the Client). 1.1.2. In December 2012, Bright & Associates (B&A) produced a report of behalf of the Client, ‘Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan’ which is referred to henceforth as the 2012 Restoration Management Plan (see Appendix 1).1 It dealt with matters relating to the Site including an amendment to the restoration design.2 1.2. APPOINTMENT AND SCOPE OF WORK 1.2.1. At the request of the Client, B&A conducted a Site review in August 2016 and have updated the approved restoration management plan, namely Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (Computer ref. A5039200) (dated November 2012) to comply with the Schedule under paragraph 1.1 of the Section 106 agreement which requires: ‘… a revised scheme for the ongoing maintenance, management and monitoring of the Land for the approval of the County Council such scheme to include: Provision for the restoration to heathland and grass heath in accordance with the restoration plan submitted as part of the Application under reference number AT939-D3v4 and dated November 2012 or such other plan as is approved and agreed by the County Council’.3 1.2.2. The resultant plan, Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001), Current Situation (2016) and Direct Management Actions is supported by the following report which consists of: Section 2 (Current Site Situation) summarises the present situation noting any major changes which have occurred since the 2012 Restoration Management Plan in terms of specific Areas of the Site; and Section 3 (Future Restoration Management) presents the supplementary aftercare details which have been prepared by B&A. It takes account of the current Site situation and restoration works completed to date since the Planning Consent was issued. 1 Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan, prepared by Bright & Associates for Biffa Waste Services, December 2012 2 Section 1 Introduction, Sub-section 1.2. Planning Consent, paragraph 1.2.1, page 2 3 Agreement Under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to Landfill Site at Deighton Hills Shooting Ground, Attlebridge, Norfolk, Norfolk County Council, page 9 Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 1 Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016) 1.2.3. This report bases much of the detail on the 2012 Restoration Management Plan and as stipulated under Condition 2 of Planning Consent, Reference C/5/2012/5008 (dated 10 April 2015); which constitute the Approved Details for the Site. 1.2.4. With respect to the 2012 Restoration Management Plan, it should be noted that the broad management aims and objectives for the Site, together with the establishment of specific species and habitats, has not fundamentally altered. 1.3. DEFINITIONS 1.3.1. The 2012 Restoration Management Plan concerns the ‘Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan’ which is included in Appendix 1 for reference. 1.3.2. Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001) refers to Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001), Current Situation (2016) and Direct Management Actions. 1.3.3. The Site applies to the Planning boundary (red line) shown on Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001). 1.3.4. Area 1, 2 etc. specifies a part of the Site listed in Table 1 Future Restoration Management, Areas 1 to 11 (2016-2018) and identified on Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001). Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 2 Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016) 2. CURRENT SITE SITUATION 2.1. SITE REVIEW (AUGUST 2016) 2.1.1. A Site review was conducted by B&A in August 2016 and the following is of note: Restoration work has taken place on Site with Area 8 being restored by completing capping and soil placement. Subsequently, this Area has been established with grassland; Tree planting has taken place in Areas 10 and 11; Heathland areas have become more established (in area extent); and Tree and shrub regeneration has increased in places within the Site. 2.2. AREAS 1 TO 11 2.2.1. The direct management actions presented in Table 1 Future Restoration Management, Areas 1 to 11 (2016-2018) constitute the medium-term actions outlined in the 2012 Restoration Management Plan. The Area numbers correlate to those in the 2012 Management Plan, albeit with a minor adjustment to Areas 9 and 10, together with an additional new Area (No.11) which reflects the current Site situation and landuses observed during the Site review. Works are proposed broadly over 2017 and 2018 to facilitate the management objectives set out in this report. 2.2.2. The underlying approach with recognition to approved restoration management plan, Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (Computer Ref. A5039200) and Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2 (Computer Ref. A5039001); is as follows: Development of heathland and mixed scrub in Areas 1, 3, 4 and 6; Development of improved grassland in Areas 2 and 8; Development of a sandy substrate grassland in Area 5; and Proposed planting in Areas 10 and 11. 2.2.3. The long term proposal to allow public access as indicated by Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (Computer Ref. A5039200) remains current and valid, however, this will only take place upon removal of Site infrastructure. Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 3 Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016) 3. FUTURE RESTORATION MANAGEMENT 3.1.1. Having completed the Site Review (August 2016) and noted the findings, Table 1 summarises the broad restoration aims, management approach and direct management actions for 2017 and 2018 for each Area (1 to 11). An example photograph is provided for illustrative purposes. 3.1.2. Generally, this concerns the control of weeds, containment of scrub regeneration where it occurs (at the expense of reducing heathland) and ongoing heathland regeneration works where some further active input is required to ‘assist’ or facilitate the process of natural regeneration. Clearance work and weed control are more noticeable actions. Once the heathland is harvested and seeded from Area 3 and 4 into Area 1, the results (success or otherwise) of this process are likely to extend further into the longer-term management process. 3.1.3. Reference should be made to Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001). 3.1.4. Longer term management actions proposed as part of this report, will include a Site review in 2020 and 2025. This will identify the process of maintenance and future action tasks which will enable habitats to be sustained or altered accordingly. Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 4 Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016) Table 1: Future Restoration Management, Areas 1 to 11 (2016- 2018) AREA 1 Broad restoration aim: The long-term restoration aim is to establish heathland within areas that are currently open and not established with scrub such as Gorse, Willow and some Birch. Currently a small area in the centre of the Site is beginning to exhibit positive heathland regeneration. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Retain current 2017 & 2018 proportion of open Cut back ground by cutting encroaching Willow back Gorse, Birch and Birch. Cut to and Willow scrub ground level, dispose along line of cuttings by illustrated. shredding, leave in piles on Site. Prevent Gorse and 2017 & 2018 Birch regeneration. Hand pulling (small regen trees) or cutting back. Shred cuttings and leave on Site. Retain rabbit 2017 grazed Gorse. Allow Gorse growth and rabbit graze but cut back extended growth. Instigate mole Winter 2016/Spring control. 2017 Mole control. Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 5 Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Managing for Species: Integrating the Needs of England’S Priority Species Into Habitat Management
    Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes www.naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes Webb, J.R., Drewitt, A.L. and Measures, G.H. Natural England Published on 15 January 2010 The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. You may reproduce as many individual copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with Natural England, 1 East Parade, Sheffield, S1 2ET ISSN 1754-1956 © Copyright Natural England 2010 Project details This report results from work undertaken by the Evidence Team, Natural England. A summary of the findings covered by this report, as well as Natural England's views on this research, can be found within Natural England Research Information Note RIN024 – Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. This report should be cited as: WEBB, J.R., DREWITT, A.L., & MEASURES, G.H., 2009. Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes. Natural England Research Reports, Number 024. Project manager Jon Webb Natural England Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA Tel: 0300 0605264 Fax: 0300 0603888 [email protected] Contractor Natural England 1 East Parade Sheffield S1 2ET Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat i management.
    [Show full text]
  • A Literature Review of Urban Effects on Lowland Heaths and Their Wildlife
    Report Number 623 A literature review of urban effects on lowland heaths and their wildlife English Nature Research Reports working today for nature tomorrow English Nature Research Reports Number 623 A literature review of urban effects on lowland heaths and their wildlife J C Underhill-Day RSPB, Syldata Arne, Wareham Dorset BH20 5BJ Telephone: 01929 550969 email: [email protected] You may reproduce as many additional copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA ISSN 0967-876X © Copyright English Nature 2005 Executive summary Introduction Heather clad lowland heath developed on light, freely draining, acid soils following prehistoric woodland clearance, and down the centuries, has been kept open by grazing, burning and cutting. As the economic value of these uses declined, considerable areas of heath were lost to agriculture, forestry, housing, roads, mineral working and other uses, and today, much of what is left is adjacent to built up areas, especially in Dorset. These lowland heathland fragments can be found across much of southern England on suitable soils. Much of the research on heathlands over the last twenty years has concentrated on the Dorset heaths, which are now almost all SSSIs and mostly within the Dorset Heathland SPA. While this report reflects the bias in the literature towards work in Dorset, the results have wide applicability to urban heathlands that are accessed by the surrounding urban populations for amenity and recreation whether in Dorset or elsewhere. This urban public access places considerable pressures on the heaths, for example through disturbance, wild fires, trampling, predation by domestic pets, pollution and enrichment.
    [Show full text]
  • England Biodiversity Indicators 2020
    4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance England Biodiversity Indicators 2020 This documents supports 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document Fiona Burns, Tom August, Mark Eaton, David Noble, Gary Powney, Nick Isaac, Daniel Hayhow For further information on 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance visit https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators 1 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Indicator 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document, 2020 NB this paper should be read together with 4b Status of UK Priority Species; distribution which presents a companion statistic based on time series on frequency of occurrence (distribution) of priority species. 1. Introduction The adjustments to the UK biodiversity indicators set as a result of the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (including the Aichi Targets) at the 10th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity mean there is a need to report progress against Aichi Target 12: Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained. Previously, the UK biodiversity indicator for threatened species used lead partner status assessments on the status of priority species from 3-yearly UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) reporting rounds. As a result of the devolution of biodiversity strategies to the UK's 4 nations, there is no longer reporting at the UK level of the status of species previously listed by the BAP process. This paper presents a robust indicator of the status of threatened species in the UK, with species identified as conservation priorities being taken as a proxy for threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • (2009) Red Data List of Derbyshire's Vascular Plants
    Red Data List of Derbyshire’s Vascular Plants Moyes, N.J. & Willmot, A. Derby Museum & Art Gallery 2009 Contents 1. Introduction Page 2 2. Red Data List Categories – What’s Included? Page 3 3. What’s Not Included? Page 4 4. Conclusion & Recommendations Page 4 5. Table 1 List of Category 1 Plants Page 5 6. Table 2 List of Category 2 Plants Page 5 7. Table 3 List of Category 3 Plants Page 7 8. Table 4 List of Category 4 Plants Page 8 9. Table 5 List of Category 5 Plants Page 9 10. Table 6 List of Category 6 Plants Page 11 11. References Page 12 Appendix 1 History of Derbyshire Red Data Lists Page 13 Appendix 2 Assessing Local Decline Page 15 Appendix 3 Full List of Derbyshire Red Data Plants Page 18 CITATION: Moyes, N.J. & Willmot, A. (2009) Red Data List of Derbyshire’s Vascular Plants. Derby Museum. 1 1) Introduction County Rare Plant Lists – or Red Data Lists – are a valuable tool to identify species of conservation concern at the local level. These are the plants we should be most concerned about protecting when they are still present, or looking out for if they seem to have declined or become extinct in the locality. All the species named in this Red Data List are native vascular plants in the area, and they either: have a national conservation status in the UK, or are rare in Derbyshire, or have exhibited a significant local decline in recent times, or have become locally extinct. The geographic area in the definition of Derbyshire used here includes: the modern administrative county of Derbyshire, the City of Derby the historic botanical recording area known as the “vice-county” of Derbyshire (VC57).
    [Show full text]
  • BOROUGH PLAN BACKGROUND PAPER: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council
    BOROUGH PLAN BACKGROUND PAPER: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 2015 1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 2 2. DESIGNATIONS RELEVANT TO NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH ................... 4 3. INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION ...................................................................... 7 4. NATIONAL LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE ..................................... 8 5. SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGIES ....................................................................... 17 6. LOCAL STRATEGIES ...................................................................................... 17 7. EVIDENCE BASE ............................................................................................. 19 8. ISSUES AND OPTIONS & PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION RESPONSES ........................................................................................................... 21 9. POLICY JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................. 23 10. DELIVERING AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES .......................................... 26 APPENDIX 1: NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH’S DESIGNATED SITES AND PRIORITY HABITATS & SPECIES ......................................................................... 27 APPENDIX 2: NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BIODIVERSITY VALUE MAP ....... 63 APPENDIX 3: SECTION 41 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL COMMUNITIES ACT 2006 - SPECIES OF PRINCIPAL IMPORTANCE IN ENGLAND ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire & Essex Butterfly Conservation
    Butterfly Conservation Regional Action Plan For Anglia (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Suffolk & Norfolk) This action plan was produced in response to the Action for Butterflies project funded by WWF, EN, SNH and CCW This regional project has been supported by Action for Biodiversity Cambridgeshire and Essex Branch Suffolk branch BC Norfolk branch BC Acknowledgements The Cambridgeshire and Essex branch, Norfolk branch and Suffolk branch constitute Butterfly Conservation’s Anglia region. This regional plan has been compiled from individual branch plans which are initially drawn up from 1997-1999. As the majority of the information included in this action plan has been directly lifted from these original plans, credit for this material should go to the authors of these reports. They were John Dawson (Cambridgeshire & Essex Plan, 1997), James Mann and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Plan, 1998), and Jane Harris (Norfolk Plan, 1999). County butterfly updates have largely been provided by Iris Newbery and Dr Val Perrin (Cambridgeshire and Essex), Roland Rogers and Brian Mcllwrath (Norfolk) and Richard Stewart (Suffolk). Some of the moth information included in the plan has been provided by Dr Paul Waring, David Green and Mark Parsons (BC Moth Conservation Officers) with additional county moth data obtained from John Dawson (Cambridgeshire), Brian Goodey and Robin Field (Essex), Barry Dickerson (Huntingdon Moth and Butterfly Group), Michael Hall and Ken Saul (Norfolk Moth Survey) and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Moth Group). Some of the micro-moth information included in the plan was kindly provided by A. M. Emmet. Other individuals targeted with specific requests include Graham Bailey (BC Cambs. & Essex), Ruth Edwards, Dr Chris Gibson (EN), Dr Andrew Pullin (Birmingham University), Estella Roberts (BC, Assistant Conservation Officer, Wareham), Matthew Shardlow (RSPB) and Ken Ulrich (BC Cambs.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity and Geodiversity Background Paper
    Biodiversity and Geodiversity Background Paper CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Purpose 5 1.2 What Is Biodiversity 5 1.3 What Is Geodiversity 6 2 DESIGNATIONS RELEVANT TO NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH 7 2.1 Natura 2000 Site Network 7 2.2 Special Areas of Conservation 8 2.3 Special Sites of Scientific Interest 8 2.4 Local Nature Reserves 8 2.5 Local Geological Sites 8 2.6 Local Wildlife Sites 8 2.7 Priority Habitats and Species 8 2.8 Ancient Woodlands 9 2.9 Veteran Trees 10 3 INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION 10 3.1 The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife 10 and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention) 3.2 Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 10 (regulation 38). 3.3 Directive 2009/147/EC (the Birds Directive), as amended 11 3.4 Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) 11 4 NATIONAL LEGISLATION 11 4.1 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 11 2006 4.2 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended 12 4.3 The Hedgerow Regulations 12 4.4 Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature 13 4.4.1 Local Nature Partnerships 14 4.4.2 Biodiversity Offsetting 14 4.4.2.1 Mitigation Hierarchy 15 4.5 National Planning Policy Framework 15 4.6 Local Sites: Guidance on their Identification, Selection and 16 Management 4.7 Keepers of Time: A Statement of Policy for England’s 16 Ancient Woodland 4.8 Geological Conservation: A Good Practice Guide 16 5 REGIONAL STRATEGIES / POLICIES 16 5.1 Enhancing Biodiversity Across the West Midlands 16 2 6 SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGIES / POLICIES 17 6.1 Warwickshire Geodiversity Action Plan 17 6.2 Warwickshire,
    [Show full text]
  • Atmos Consulting Report Template
    20604-02 R2 Rev2 Technical Report Ecological Assessment Land to the south of Brandon Road, Watton, Norfolk Tesni Properties Ltd February 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Terms of Reference 1 1.1.1 Objectives of the Study 1 1.2 Site Description 1 2 Legislation and planning policy 2 2.1 National Planning Policy 2 2.2 UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework 3 2.3 Legislation 3 3 Desk Study 5 3.1 Data Collection 5 3.2 Statutory Designated Sites 5 3.3 Non-statutory Designated Sites 6 3.4 European Protected Species 7 3.5 UK Protected Species 7 3.6 Other Species of Conservation Concern 7 3.7 Avian Species 9 3.7.1 Stone Curlew Data 10 4 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 12 4.1 Survey Methodology 12 4.1.1 Limitations 12 4.2 Survey Results 12 4.2.1 Habitats Recorded Within the Site 13 4.2.2 Habitats Recorded Within the Wider Survey Area 14 4.2.3 Flora 16 5 Conclusions 17 5.1 General Ecology 17 5.2 Potential for Protected Species 17 5.2.1 Great Crested Newts 17 5.2.2 Potential for Bats 18 5.3 Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 20 5.3.1 Great crested newts 20 5.3.2 Bats 20 February 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R2 Rev2 Contents 5.3.3 Habitats 21 5.3.4 Birds 22 6 References 23 Appendix A. Designated Sites within 2km of Proposed Site 24 Appendix B. Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes 31 Tables Table 1 County Wildlife Sites located within 2km of the proposed Watton Site 6 Table 2 Species of Conservation Interest recorded within 2km of the proposed Watton Site (source – NBIS) 8 Table 3 Avian Species of Conservation Interest recorded within
    [Show full text]
  • Butterfly Conservation's Uk Conservation Strategy 2025
    BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION’S UK CONSERVATION STRATEGY 2025 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 2. WHY CONSERVE BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS? ........................................................................ 3 3. THE DECLINING STATUS OF BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS ...................................................... 3 3.1 Species Trends ............................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Grouped Species Trends .............................................................................................................. 4 4. DRIVERS OF DECLINE ................................................................................................................. 6 5. HABITAT SPECIALISTS AND WIDER COUNTRYSIDE SPECIES .............................................. 7 5.1 Conserving Habitat Specialist Species ......................................................................................... 8 5.2 Conserving Wider Countryside Species ....................................................................................... 8 6. SPECIES RECOVERY STRATEGY AND THE SPECIES RECOVERY CURVE ........................ 10 6.1 STATUS ASSESSMENT (Stage 1): PRIORITISING THREATENED SPECIES........................ 12 6.1.1 Assessing UK Threat Priority using Distribution and Abundance Criteria ........................... 12 6.1.2 Changing Threat Status of UK Butterflies ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Heathland
    Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Heathland Version February 2009 Updated from (February 2004) ISSN 1743-8160 (online) CSM Guidance for Lowland heathland Issue date: February 2009 Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland heathland 1 Introduction 1.1 Lowland heathland in England, Wales and Northern Ireland comprises a range of habitats characterised by the abundance of ericoids or gorse species. It occurs on generally nutrient-poor soils, usually below 300 m. Heathland in Scotland is rarely defined as lowland heathland; most Scottish heathland occurs above the upper limits of agricultural enclosure. However, some forms of heathland at low altitudes, similar in character to those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and usually within the enclosed part of the landscape, do occur in Scotland, although mostly as small fragments. The most distinctive and extensive are the coastal heaths. 1.2 Lowland heathland includes dry, wet, humid, chalk/limestone, coastal and lichen heaths, and all successional stages from bare ground to shrubs. See Annex 1 for a full definition for CSM purposes of lowland heathlands in terms of components, Phase 1 habitat survey classes, NVC types and Annex I (Habitats Directive) equivalents, and section 2 below for more detailed descriptions. 1.3 Guidance on monitoring is summarised in table 1 (lowland dry heath) and table 2 (lowland wet heath). Upland heathland is covered by separate guidance, but the distinction between upland and lowland examples may sometimes be difficult. Heath vegetation on maritime cliff/slopes and dune heath are both included within the lowland heathland guidance but assessment of these types should be done in conjunction with the relevant coastal guidance section.
    [Show full text]
  • Lowland Heathland and Lowland Dry Acid Grassland in Oxfordshire
    LOWLAND HEATHLAND AND LOWLAND DRY ACID GRASSLAND IN OXFORDSHIRE UK Biodiversity Group - Priority Species associated with heathland 1. INTRODUCTION Nightjar Lowland heathland is characterised by the presence of species Linnet such as heather, bell heather, and gorse, and it is associated with Dingy mocha moth acidic, nutrient-poor soils. Acid grassland also occurs on Grey scalloped bar moth, nutrient-poor soils and is characterised by species such as common bent, sheep’s sorrel, heath bedstraw and tormentil. Parched acid grassland, which becomes excessively dry in Other Associated Species summer, may support a number of uncommon, ephemeral Tree pipit species, such as small cudweed. Stonechat Emperor moth Heathland and acid grassland are formed when forests on nutrient poor soils are cleared for agriculture. It requires White-line snout moth management to check scrub invasion and the subsequent Small red damselfly development of woodland, and to keep the nutrient content of Adder the soil low. In the past this management took the form of grazing, burning and gathering of heather and gorse, for such Blue fescue uses as fuel and thatch. Heathland is not only an important Heath cudweed habitat for wildlife but also forms a valuable part of the cultural Heather heritage of the U.K. Bell heather In Oxfordshire, heathland and acid grassland were never very Sphagnum mosses common and are now very rare habitats largely restricted to the sandy soils on the Corallian sandstone (where it forms a grassy Associated Habitats ‘Breckland’ type heath) and the clay-with-flints and pebbly Woodlands soils of the Chilterns plateau (where heather forms a mosaic with acid grassland).
    [Show full text]
  • Lowland Heathland and Dry Acid Grassland
    NORFOLK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN Ref 1/H6 Tranche 1 Habitat Action Plan 6 Plan Author: Norfolk County Council LOWLAND HEATHLAND AND DRY ACID Plan Co-ordinator: Heathland BAP Topic GRASSLAND Group The UK BAP identifies heathland as consisting Plan Leader: Norfolk County of “an ericaceous layer of varying heights and Council structures, some areas of scattered trees and Date: Stage: scrub, areas of bare ground, gorse, wet heaths, 31 December 1998 Version 1 bogs and open water”. In Norfolk, heathland is April 2004 Version 2 much more of a mosaic, with acid grassland and 17 November 2011 Version 3 bracken often being significant elements. Even more distinctive are the heaths of the Brecks which include chalk grassland and little or no heather. In East Anglia, the typical lowland acid grassland community is NVC U1, comprising sheep’s-fescue Festuca ovina, common bent Agrostis capillaris and sheep’s sorrel Rumex acetosella. Other species may include wavy hair-grass Deschampsia flexuosa, heath bedstraw Galium saxatile and tormentil Potentilla erecta. 1., CURRENT STATUS National Status In England, only a sixth of the heathland present in 1800 now remains. The UK has about 95,000 ha of lowland heathland (58,000 ha of which are in England) representing about 20% of the international total of this habitat. As with other lowland semi-natural grassland types, acid grassland underwent substantial declines in the 20th century. Although there are no figures available on the current rate of loss, it is thought to be slowing. The decline is primarily the result of under-management, specifically under-grazing and abandonment.
    [Show full text]