Invertebrate and Moth Report

LONDON ASHFORD AIRPORT, LYDD (LAA)

INVERTEBRATE AND MOTH REPORT

August 2008

Prepared by Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd London Ashford Airport Amber Court Lydd William Armstrong Drive Romney Marsh Newcastle upon Tyne Kent NE4 7YQ TN29 9QL Report Title : Invertebrate and Moth Report

Report Status : Final

Job No : HAG91877A/3.1

Date : August 2008

Prepared by : ...... Leanne Moses

Checked by : ...... Mark McLellan

Approved by : ...... Mark Mclellan INVERTEBRATE SURVEY

In December 2006, London Ashford Airport (Lydd) ("LAA") submitted a planning application for a runway extension (reference Y06/1648/SH) and a planning application for a new terminal building (reference Y06/1647/SH) supported by an Environmental Statement. Following consultation that took place at the beginning of 2007, LAA submitted in October 2007 Supplementary Information to further support the two planning applications.

The Supplementary Information was consulted upon during Autumn/Winter 2007, with Shepway District Council ("SDC") requesting additional information in March 2008. The points in relation to invertebrates are replicated below as follows:

Issue (Numbers Designated Request/clarification as in SDC Table) site (plus potential and intended) 9. Terrestrial SSSI i. In consultation with Kent Wildlife Trust, clarify the invertebrates need, or otherwise, to undertake terrestrial invertebrate surveys for the purposes of the EIA Regs. If this proves to be reasonably necessary, undertake the surveys, assess impacts, propose mitigation (as necessary) and submit the results. 19. Bagous To be i. Clarify with Natural England the need, or otherwise, invertebrate confirmed for the purposes of the EIA Regs to identify to samples species-level the Bagous samples previously taken, and if this proves to be reasonably necessary conduct the work and submit the results, and specify the intended and potential designated site(s) concerned.

Letter Header Number 5 as Comment/Issue detailed in the SDC letter dated 5th March

5. Design Landscaping and A lighting Assessment is required. Impacts of lighting from Lighting the car parking areas and roads are of particular concern though lighting effects from the terminal building itself should also be taken into account. This should include consideration of light spill, sensitive receptors and mitigation.

Extracts from Shepway District Council's request of March 2008

These issues are addressed in turn. 1 TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES

1.1 Response to Comments 9 (i)

Issue Designated Request/clarification site (plus potential and intended) 9. Terrestrial SSSI i. In consultation with Kent Wildlife Trust, clarify the invertebrates need, or otherwise, to undertake terrestrial invertebrate surveys for the purposes of the EIA Regs. If this proves to be reasonably necessary, undertake the surveys, assess impacts, propose mitigation (as necessary) and submit the results.

1.1.1 As requested by SDC, on 24 June 2008 Parsons Brinckerhoff ("PB") consulted with Kent Wildlife Trust ("KWT") on the need to undertake additional terrestrial invertebrate surveys. PB’s view on this issue, as stated to KWT, is:

“In addition to the work on terrestrial invertebrates in the Environmental Statements, further Supplementary Information was submitted in October 2007 in respect of both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates.

Terrestrial invertebrates were first surveyed at the site between July and September 2005. A further survey was undertaken in July 2007, which recorded terrestrial invertebrates along a transect of the proposed runway extension. None of the invertebrates recorded were considered to be rare or uncommon.

PB is not planning any further invertebrate surveys. We are of the professional opinion that we have provided sufficient information for the likely impact of the proposed development on terrestrial invertebrates to be established. In summary, the land representing the footprint of the proposed runway extension is of low habitat value for terrestrial invertebrates, but in any event it must be remembered that the majority of the runway extension footprint is to be clear and graded semi-improved grassland, just as it is now. The footprint of the proposed new terminal building is on existing hard-stand, which is of low habitat value for terrestrial invertebrates.

By contrast, and as stated in the submitted documents, the drainage ditches which would be directly affected and lost under the footprint of the proposed runway extension are of ecological value, including invertebrate interest. Accordingly, we will be submitting further measures to mitigate / off-set this loss, which will, in the long term, enhance invertebrate interest at the Airport.

Whilst PB considers that further surveys for terrestrial invertebrates are unnecessary to determine the impact of the development proposals on terrestrial invertebrates, the views of Kent Wildlife Trust on this topic are welcomed.

1.1.2 The response from KWT made no specific response to this item, outside of the reference to nitrogen deposition impacts (addressed in the Nitrogen Deposition Report submitted alongside this report in the 2008 submission of Supplementary Environmental Information). Accordingly, PB remains of the professional opinion that sufficient information has been provided for the likely impact of the proposed

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd August 2008 Page 1 for Lydd Airport development on terrestrial invertebrates to be established and that there is no need to undertake additional terrestrial invertebrate surveys.

2 BAGOUS INVERTEBRATE SAMPLES

Issue Designated Request/clarification site (plus potential and intended) 19. Bagous To be i. Clarify with Natural England the need, or otherwise, invertebrate confirmed for the purposes of the EIA Regs to identify to samples species-level the Bagous samples previously taken, and if this proves to be reasonably necessary conduct the work and submit the results, and specify the intended and potential designated site(s) concerned.

2.1 As requested by SDC, on 24 June 2008 PB consulted with Natural England ("NE") on the need to identify to species-level the Bagous sample previously taken. PB’s view on this issue, as stated to NE, is:

“We are not clear on the reasons for focussing on this genus (weevils); the surveys undertaken between July and September 2005 reported that Bagous species are present in a majority of the drains surrounding the airport. Classifying to species level would not in our professional opinion improve the assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development. We seek Natural England’s professional opinion on this matter.”

2.1.1 NE’s response was as follows:

“Natural England originally requested the clarification of which species of Bagous were found during ditch surveys because there are both rarer and common Bagous species on the site and it is important to distinguish between these in order to assess the importance of the ditch fauna within the ditches to be in-filled”.

2.1.2 Following receipt of NE's response, PB consulted with its project invertebrate specialist, Andy Godfrey. Whilst it is possible that rarer Bagous species may be present in the ditch systems in the wider Dungeness Peninsula area, no rare Bagous species were found at LAA during the surveys completed in May, July and August 2007.

2.1.3 It is not in contention that the ditch network, including the length proposed for in-filling, has ecological value, especially for aquatic invertebrates. However, it is clear from the absence of rarer Bagous species within the ditches that their ecological value could be improved.

2.1.4 Therefore, as part of a proposed mitigation package to improve and enhance habitat creation and management at LAA, LAA proposes to create a new ditch designed specifically to enhance biodiversity for such invertebrates as rarer Bagous species. Further details are provided within the Biodiversity Action Plan, which is submitted alongside this report in the 2008 Supplementary Environmental Information.

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd August 2008 Page 2 for Lydd Airport 3 MOTH FIELD SURVEY

3.1 Response to SDC Letter Header Number 5

Letter Header Number 5 as Comment/Issue detailed in the SDC letter dated 5th March

5. Design Landscaping and A lighting assessment is required. Impacts of Lighting lighting from the car parking areas and roads are of particular concern though lighting effects from the terminal building itself should also be taken into account. This should include consideration of light spill, sensitive receptors and mitigation.

3.1.1 As requested above, a lighting assessment has been carried out and is submitted alongside this report in the 2008 Supplementary Environmental Information. The proposed lighting scheme for the new terminal building and associated parking has been developed to reduce the lighting impact on the designated ecological areas at and close to LAA. In developing the lighting scheme, one of the most important groups to consider is moths, as Dungeness is notable for its moth species. A field survey was conducted at the site of the proposed new terminal using moth traps. Details of the field survey are provided in Appendix A; the following is a summary of findings.

Survey Methodology

3.1.2 The study was conducted by Sean Clancy, an expert in moth and micro-moth species of the Dungeness area. Trapping was conducted using two Mercury-Vapour (MV) moth traps, located at OS Grid references TR05942162 on the late evening and night of 14th July 2008 and at TR05902167 on the late evening and night of 15th July 2008. (see Figure 1).

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd August 2008 Page 3 for Lydd Airport Figure 1: Location of two moth surveys carried out at LAA

Location of moth trapping

Survey Results

3.1.3 A total of sixty species were identified from the field survey. Of these species, three have been recorded as notable, these are:

x Cynaeda dentalis – listed in the Red Data Book,

x Synaphe punctalis – a nationally notable species, and

x Eilema pygmaeola (Pigmy footman) – listed in the Red Data Book.

3.1.4 The trapping results show that there are several rare and noteworthy species within close proximity of the proposed terminal building location. It is acknowledged that this study is not comprehensive and that trapping at other times of the year would be likely to add other rare and noteworthy species. For the purposes of impact assessment, therefore, it is assumed that the locality of the proposed terminal building is the site of important moth habitat, and that lighting proposals for the new terminal should recognise this and attempt to mitigate impact.

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd August 2008 Page 4 for Lydd Airport 3.1.5 To assist the mitigation process, information on the impact of artificial lighting on moths has been reviewed.

Impacts of lighting on moths

3.1.6 For many years, several prominent lepidopterists have attributed the increase in outdoor lighting to the declines in populations of moths, especially saturniids in the northeastern United States (Holland 1903, Ferguson 1971, Hessel 1976, Muller 1979, Worth & Muller 1979, Krivda 1980, Pyle et al. 1981). The Butterfly Conservation Society has also suggested that the decline in moth populations in the UK can partly be attributed to the increase in light pollution over the last century, associated with population growth and industrialisation. They have stated that street lighting, floodlighting, security lighting and other urban light sources, are a serious cause of concern and might be the single biggest threat to urban moth populations (Butterfly Conservation Society, 2008).

Behavioural Changes

3.1.7 One theory of why moths are attracted to artificial light is because they mistake it for the moon. Moths use the position of the moon in orientation by maintaining a specific angle with its direction.

3.1.8 Once a moth is attracted to a light source, it often continues to fly around the light until it becomes exhausted. This leaves the moth unable to procreate or feed and can result in death. In addition, the advancing ‘sky glow’ typical of our towns and cities, could alter the behaviour of moth species and prevent normal nocturnal activities such as mating and feeding. This in turn could result in a reduced population (Butterfly Conservation society, 2008).

Increased Predation

3.1.9 There is evidence to suggest that bats and other nocturnal and daytime predators have learnt to take advantage of the large concentration of moths which can often be found around artificial light (Butterfly Conservation Society, 2008).

3.1.10 It has also been suggested that high intensity mercury vapour lights disrupt the interaction between bats and tympanate moths by interfering with their detection of the ultrasonic chirps used by bats in echo-location. This prevents the moths from taking evasive action (Svensson and Rydell 1998).

3.1.11 However, the situation is complex and according to Frank (1988):

“Effects of outdoor lighting may be divergent. They vary according to species, lamps, and habitats. Disturbances such as habitat destruction and urbanization may further compound effects of outdoor lighting. Several conclusions emerge from the observations on lighting. Outdoor lighting may destroy vast numbers of individual moths without apparently suppressing populations of moths. However, it disturbs some populations more than others, and it disturbs some individuals more than others in the same population”. 3.1.12 The impacts of artificial lighting on moth species may have a resultant impact on other flora and fauna, for example, night-blooming flowers. Night blooming flowers usually depend on moths for pollination and artificial lighting. If moths are drawn away from such flowers, the plants ability to reproduce may be affected.

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd August 2008 Page 5 for Lydd Airport 3.1.13 Despite abundant evidence that outdoor lighting affects individual moths, few studies have attempted to quantify lighting effects on moth populations. Evidence that lighting has suppressed populations of particular moths such as saturniids is weak.

Types of Lighting 3.1.14 Light sources are known to differ in their attractiveness to insects. As an example, high pressure mercury vapour lights with a high content of UV are very attractive, whereas high pressure sodium lights seem to attract less than half as many moths on average (Eisenbeis, 2006).

3.1.15 It has been well documented that, generally speaking, most moth species are attracted to UV light as well as wavelengths at the purple/blue part of the spectrum (e.g. Frank, 1988; http://www.back-garden-moths.co.uk/Techniques.htm).

Mitigation Measures 3.1.16 From available scientific and popular literature, it is apparent that utilising certain types of lighting can be an effective method of reducing impacts of lighting on moths and this principle should be adopted by LAA when devising its lighting strategy. A variety of other measures may protect moths from adverse effects of outdoor lighting. Lamp-free reserves such as sheltered hollows shielded from lighting have been suggested to save the glow worm, Lampyris noctiluca, a species whose survival in Britain may be threatened by outdoor lighting (Crowson 1981).

3.1.17 To reduce the potential impacts of lighting in habitats already exposed to lighting, filters can be used to block ultraviolet light from mercury vapour lamps, and shields may be placed around lamps to block stray light. Impacts of lighting can be further minimised by angling lights directly at the source they are intended for. Using the lowest practical levels of lighting during construction and operation should also be considered.

3.1.18 The Environment Agency offers the following guidance to reduce impacts from light pollution:

x design light fittings that reduce light emitted upwards

x position lighting properly and direct it downwards

x use only the necessary amount of lighting

x switch off unnecessary lighting, particularly decorative floodlighting, late at night and in the early morning. 3.1.19 The results of this desk and field survey have been used to inform the lighting assessment which is submitted alongside this report in the 2008 Supplementary Environmental Information.

4 RELATIONSHIP TO THE 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT AND 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

4.1 This Report should be read in conjunction with:-

x Chapter 10 of the 2006 Environmental Statement for both the Terminal Building and the Runway Extension; x The Conclusions section of Appendix 5.1 of Volume 3A of the 2007 Supplemental Information; and

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd August 2008 Page 6 for Lydd Airport x The Statements to Inform on the Predicted Impacts from the Proposed New Terminal Building and Runway Extension at LAA on the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and the Dungeness SAC contained in Volume 4 of the 2007 Supplemental Information.

4.2 The conclusions of this Report re-affirm the conclusions within the 2006 Environmental Statement and the 2007 Supplemental Information, which assessed the likely impact of the proposed developments on terrestrial invertebrates to be not significant, particularly once mitigation measures are put into practice. The conclusions of this Report also re-affirm the conclusions of the Statements to Inform, which concluded that the proposed developments would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA or the SAC.

REFERENCES x Butterfly Conservation (No date) Light pollution and moths. Available at www.butterfly- conservation.org x EcoSchemes Ltd (2003) Green Roofs: their existing status and potential for conserving biodiversity in urban areas. English Nature Research Report 498. x Frank, K. (1996) Impact of outdoor lighting on moths. International Dark Sky Association - Information Sheet 106. Available at www.darksky.org x Parsons, M.S. (1993). A review of the scarce and threatened pyralid moths of Great Britain. UK Nature Conservation No. 11. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. x Parsons, M.S. (1995). A review of the scarce and threatened ethmiine, stathmopodine and gelechiid moths of Great Britain. UK Nature Conservation No. 16. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd August 2008 Page 7 for Lydd Airport Appendix A LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

Report to Parsons Brinckerhoff

July 2008

ANDY GODFREY Entomological Consultant 90 Bence Lane Darton Barnsley South Yorkshire S75 5DA

Tel: 01226 384022 Email: [email protected]

1 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 4 METHODS 4 RESULTS 4 SPECIES ASSESSMENT 4 IMPACT OF LIGHTING ON MOTHS 4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION 5 CONCLUSIONS 5 REFERENCES 5

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: MOTHS RECORDED FROM LYDD AIRPORT APPROACH ROAD: JULY 2008

APPENDIX 2: DETAILS OF THE ECOLOGY, STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIGNIFICANT SPECIES RECORDED

APPENDIX 3: LOCATION OF THE MOTH TRAPPING SITE

2 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Parsons Brinckerhoff requested a moth survey on land off the approach road to London Ashford Airport (Lydd) (“LAA”) in July 2008. The moth survey is to support the assessment of lighting impacts that may arise as a result of a planning application to erect a new terminal building and a planning application to extend the runway. Following comments issued to LAA by Shepway District Council (“SDC”) in March 2008 relating to the potential impacts of lighting in the car parking area and terminal building on sensitive receptors, moths were identified as being potentially at risk from lighting impacts. For this reason a moth survey has been completed at LAA.

The results of moth trapping in mid-July 2008 are presented within this report. Two mercury-vapour traps run by generators were operated and further information on the method is provided. A total of sixty species were recorded which includes two Red Data Book and one Nationally Scarce species. ‘Nationally Scarce’ the current terminology used by Natural England and has replaced ‘Nationally Notable’. These species are well- known species characteristic of coastal shingle at Dungeness but rare or absent elsewhere. Five relatively frequent and nationally widespread moth species which have recently been placed on the UK BAP list were also recorded. These species were placed on the BAP list presumably to highlight the decline of relatively common and widespread species, but their inclusion alongside genuine rare species makes their assessment difficult.

Some information on the impact of artificial lighting on moths is provided in response to SDC. Recommendations for mitigation are also provided and include measures to reduce the impact of light on the moth population.

3 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

INTRODUCTION Parsons Brinckerhoff requested a moth survey on land adjacent to the approach road to London Ashford Airport (Lydd) (“LAA”) in July 2008. The moth survey is to support the assessment of lighting impacts that may arise as a result of a planning application to erect a new terminal building and a planning application to extend the runway. Following consultation in 2007, Shepway District Council (“SDC”) commented that;

‘Impacts of lighting from the car parking areas and roads are of particular concern though lighting effects from the terminal building itself should also be taken into account. This should include consideration of light spill, sensitive receptors and mitigation’.

Moths are known to be potentially sensitive to the impacts of lighting. In response to the above, a moth survey was completed at LAA and the impacts of lighting on moth species considered.

METHODS Light-trapping was conducted using two Mercury-Vapour (MV) moth traps powered by portable generators. These were operated at National Grid References TR05942162 on the 14th July and at TR05902167 on the 15th July.

The trapping site off the approach road to LAA was selected Parsons Brinckerhoff. Access (LAA closes at 7pm), interference from airport security lighting, the need for vehicular access to transport heavy generators and bulky traps and health and safety problems associated with working on an airfield with powerful lights meant that surveying within LAA's perimeter would have been difficult (and this explains why it was not undertaken in the past). Photograph 1 in Appendix 3 shows the location of the two MV traps in the foreground with airport hanger lighting in the background. The hanger lighting may have had a negative effect on the effectiveness of the trapping but it is probably difficult finding anywhere near the proposed development site that does not have security lighting.

Sean Clancy undertook the trapping and identification of the moths on behalf of the surveyor.

Weather conditions on the two survey dates are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Weather conditions on the two survey dates

Survey Date Weather Conditions 14th July 2008 Wind speed Force 1-3, minimum temperature 12- 13ºC, clear with near full moon 15th July 2008 Wind speed Force 1-3, minimum temperature 14- 15ºC, broken cloud with near full moon

RESULTS

SPECIES ASSESSMENT A list of the moth species recorded on the two dates is provided in Appendix 1 of this report. A total of 60 species were recorded on the two nights with 35 macromoths and 25 micromoths. Two Red Data Book and one Nationally Scarce species were recorded and the ecology of these species are briefly discussed below. Further details of the ecology, status and distribution of the significant species are provided in Appendix 2.

Red Data Book 3 Cynaeda dentalis Eilema pygmaeola Pygmy footman

Nationally Scarce Synaphe punctalis

All three moths are well-known species which are characteristic of the coastal shingle areas at Dungeness. None of the species are particularly threatened at Dungeness and can be frequent there (see the Moths of Dungeness website at www.mothsofdungeness.co.uk for their status in the area), but they are nationally rare and restricted. Protecting areas of coastal shingle should ensure that the moths continue to be present at Dungeness.

4 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

Five of the moths recorded during the survey are listed on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK Biodiversity Group 1999). The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (“UK BAP”) was recently reviewed (in 2006) and a large number of additional invertebrate species were added including a large number of relatively common moths. The revised and updated list of UK BAP invertebrates may be viewed on the UK BAP website at www.ukbap.org.uk. The five UK BAP moths recorded are as follows:

Malacosoma neustria Lackey Melanchra persicariae Dot moth Brachylomia viminalis Minor shoulder-knot Mesoligia literosa Rosy minor Hoplodrina blanda The rustic

The UK BAP moths recorded from the proposed development area are all relatively common and widespread moths (details of their ecology, status and distribution are provided in Appendix 2). They were proposed as UK BAP species by Butterfly Conservation because they have suffered a decline and were accepted in the recent BAP review. These moths are common to relatively frequent in Dungeness (mothsofdungeness.co.uk) and this is likely to be the case throughout Kent and East Sussex. The significance of these moths near LAA is open to question because they are not rare or uncommon. Mitigation measures based on these species have been provided below.

IMPACT OF LIGHTING ON MOTHS In response to SDC’s comment relating to the potential impacts of lighting in the car parking area and terminal building on sensitive receptors, information on the potentially impacts of light pollution on moth species is provided below.

Research has revealed that there appears to be generally little information available on the impact of light pollution on moths. Some of the research and articles relating to lighting and bats (which obviously feed on moths) may be relevant but has not been considered here which has focused specifically on moths. Several documents are available on the internet relating to lighting and moths and these have been consulted; these include one from Butterfly Conservation (www.butterfly-conservation.org), one from the International Dark Sky Association (www.darksky.org) and another from the Royal Astronomical Society's Campaign for Dark Skies website (www.britastro.org).

The paucity of research on the impact of lighting on moths may reflect the fact that different moth species will behave differently to artificial light, to different types of lighting and to light intensity and wavelengths as well as to other factors.

The International Dark Sky Association suggests that filters may be placed over mercury vapour lights to block out ultraviolet light and shields may be placed around lamps to block out stray light. Low-watt incandescent lamps may be used to replace ordinary incandescent lamps but some moths fly into these.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION Consider the impact of additional lighting on moths, bats and other nocturnal animals and try to minimise the impact of lighting wherever possible through the introduction of certain types of lighting that are known to be less attractive to moths. The recommendations given in the section above by the International Dark Sky Association should also be considered and introduced into the proposed development where possible. Ensure that within LAA’s perimeter, areas of grassland, coastal shingle and scrub are managed as far as possible for wildlife. This includes keeping fertiliser use to a minimum, none use of pesticides, insecticides and other chemicals and additives.

LAA should consult with local landowners to discuss the potential for establishing more environmentally friendly grazing on marginal areas around the airfield. This may include lighter grazing with cattle rather than the intensive sheep-grazing that currently takes place.

Plants associated with coastal shingle such as viper's bugloss and Cladonia lichens should be protected from damage or disturbance and sympathetically managed.

CONCLUSIONS The results of moth trapping over two nights in July 2008 outside LAA are presented. The methods used are described. A total of sixty species were recorded which includes two Red Data Book and one Nationally Scarce species. These species are well-known species characteristic of coastal shingle at Dungeness but

5 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY rare or absent elsewhere. Five relatively frequent and nationally widespread moth species which have recently been placed on the UK BAP list were also recorded. These species were placed on the BAP list presumably to highlight the decline of relatively common and widespread species, but their inclusion alongside genuine rare species makes their assessment difficult.

Some information on the impact of artificial lighting on moths has been reviewed and recommendations for mitigation to reduce the impacts of light pollution have been provided. These measures include the possible introduction of certain types of lighting that are known to be less attractive to moths and placing shields around any lamps to block out stray light.

6 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

APPENDIX 1: MOTH SPECIES RECORDED OUTSIDE LYDD AIRPORT IN JULY 2008

APPENDIX 1: MOTHS RECORDED FROM LYDD AIRPORT APPROACH ROAD: JULY 2008 14- 15- No. Vernacular Name / Family Species National Status Jul Jul 321 Gracillariidae Phyllonorycter messaniella 1 464 Yponomeutidae Plutella xylostella 1 1 736 Gelechiidae Monochroa lucidella 1 787 Gelechiidae Bryotropha terrella 1 843 Gelechiidae Aproaerema anthyllidella 1 873 Blastobasidae Blastobasis adustella 1 937 Tortricidae Agapeta hamana 1 1 964a Tortricidae Cochylis molliculana 1 1 966 Tortricidae Cochylis atricapitana 1 1016 Tortricidae Cnephasia longana 1 1 1108 Tortricidae Lobesia abscisana 1 1 1201 Tortricidae Eucosma cana 1 1202 Tortricidae Eucosma obumbratana 1 1205 Tortricidae Spilonota ocellana 1 1293 Pyralidae Chrysoteuchia culmella Common 1 1 1302 Pyralidae Crambus perlella Common 1 1304 Pyralidae Agriphila straminella Common 1 1 1354 Pyralidae Cataclysta lemnata Common 1 1359 Pyralidae Cynaeda dentalis RDB3 1 1376 Pyralidae Eurrhypara hortulata Common 1 1414 Pyralidae Synaphe punctalis Notable/Nb 2 1424 Pyralidae Endotricha flammealis Common 1 1481 Pyralidae Homoeosoma sinuella Common 1 1483 Pyralidae Phycitodes binaevella Local 1 1524 Pterophoridae Emmelina monodactylus Common 1 1634 Lackey Malacosoma neustria Common 1 1640 Drinker Euthrix potatoria Common 1 1 1708 Single-dotted Wave Idaea dimidiata Common 1 1713 Riband Wave Idaea aversata Common 1 1 1825 Lime-speck Pug Eupithecia centaureata Common 1 1 1906 Brimstone Moth Opisthograptis luteolata Common 1 1978 Pine Hawk-moth Hyloicus pinastri Local 1 1981 Poplar Hawk-moth Laothoe populi Common 1 1991 Elephant Hawk-moth Deilephila elpenor Common 1 2029 Brown-tail Euproctis chrysorrhoea Local 2 3 2046 Pigmy Footman Eilema pygmaeola RDB3 1 2050 Common Footman Eilema lurideola Common 1 2087 Turnip Moth Agrotis segetum Common 1 2089 Heart and Dart Agrotis exclamationis Common 1 2102 Flame Shoulder Ochropleura plecta Common 1 2107 Large Yellow Underwing Noctua pronuba Common 1 1 2109 Lesser Yellow Underwing Noctua comes Common 1 1 2155 Dot Moth Melanchra persicariae Common 1 2160 Bright-line Brown-eye Lacanobia oleracea Common 1 1 2167 Tawny Shears Hadena perplexa Common 1 2193 The Clay Mythimna ferrago Common 1 1 2197 Southern Wainscot Mythimna straminea Local 1 2198 Smoky Wainscot Mythimna impura Common 1 1 2225 Minor Shoulder-knot Brachylomia viminalis Common 1

7 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

2278 Poplar Grey Acronicta megacephala Common 1 2321 Dark Arches Apamea monoglypha Common 1 1 2322 Light Arches Apamea lithoxylaea Common 1 1 2341 Cloaked Minor Mesoligia furuncula Common 1 1 2342 Rosy Minor Mesoligia literosa Common 1 2343 Common Rustic Mesapamea secalis Common 1 2381 The Uncertain Hoplodrina alsines Common 1 2382 The Rustic Hoplodrina blanda Common 1 1 2434 Burnished Brass Diachrysia chrysitis Common 1 2441 Silver Y Autographa gamma Migrant 1 2477 The Snout Hypena proboscidalis Common 1

Species total: 60 38 42 Macrolepidoptera: 35 24 24 Microlepidoptera: 25 14 18 Red Data Book/Nationally Notable species: 3 0 3

8 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

APPENDIX 2: DETAILS OF THE ECOLOGY, STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIGNIFICANT SPECIES RECORDED

Red Data Book 3 Cynaeda dentalis This distinctive pyralid moth is mainly known from a few localities on the south coast. It frequents coastal localities and is found on shingle and on chalk and limestone cliffs. It has also been recorded from chalk downland inland and from a sand dune system. The larvae feeds internally in the lower part of the stem and the leaf bases of viper's bugloss Echium vulgare. Parsons (1993) provides more ecological information.

Eilema pygmaeola Pygmy footman The pygmy footman is a resident species and suspected immigrant. This subspecies is endemic to Britain and known only from the coastal shingle at Dungeness, Kent. It's status as a subspecies has been questioned and it may only represent a form. The larvae feed on lichens and algae on stones, plant stems and posts and almost certainly include Cladonia rangiformis. The habitat of this species is coastal sand- dunes and shingle beaches with a mosaic of grasses and lichens.

Nationally Scarce Synaphe punctalis This pyralid moth is known from southern and eastern England as far as Lincolnshire (records from further north are considered errors). This species is found on vegetated shingle, sandy habitats by the sea including dune-slacks, sheltered hollows on chalk downs and saltmarshes. The larva feeds until June amongst terrestrial mosses. Parsons (1995) provides more ecological information.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan species Malacosoma neustria Lackey Generally distributed and moderately common in southern England. Single brooded, flying in July and August. The larvae feed on a wide variety of trees and shrubs such as hawthorn, blackthorn, sallow and various fruit trees.

Melanchra persicariae Dot moth Widespread and generally common throughout England and Wales. Found in a variety of habitats, but preferring gardens and suburban wasteland. Single brooded, flying in July and August. The larvae feed on many wild and garden plants, also reported feeding on sallow, elder and larch saplings.

Brachylomia viminalis Minor shoulder-knot Widespread and not uncommon over much of England, Wales and Scotland. This species inhabits woodland, commons, fenland and marshy places. Single brooded, flying in July and early August. The larvae feed on willow and sallow.

Mesoligia literosa Rosy minor Widely distributed and not uncommon, especially in coastal localities. This species inhabits sandhills, chalk sea-cliffs, marshes, commons, waste ground and other grassy places. Single brooded, flying from mid-July to late August. The larvae feed in the roots and stems of various grasses, including cock's-foot, marram, lyme-grass, false oat grass, sheep's-fescue and glaucous sedge. It is also said to feed in wheat, oats and other cereals.

Hoplodrina blanda The rustic Widespread and generally common in England, Wales and Ireland; local and less frequent in Scotland. Normally single-brooded, flying from late June to mid-August; a partial second brood sometimes in southern England. It inhabits gardens, waste ground, sandhills, heathland, downland, etc. The larvae feed on a variety of low plants such as dock and plantain.

9 LYDD AIRPORT: MOTH SURVEY

APPENDIX 3: LOCATION OF THE MOTH TRAPPING SITE

Photograph 1: Location of the moth trapping site with the two Mercury-Vapour moth traps in the foreground and airport hanger lights in the background.