DOCSLIB.ORG

An Ecological Survey of the Mid Arun Valley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Ecological Survey of the Mid Arun Valley An ecological survey of the Mid Arun Valley Prepared by: Jacqueline Thompson BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM Consultant Ecologist and Botanist Wildlife Splash Pinehurst East Street Mayfield East Sussex TN20 6TZ Tel: 01435 872641 Mob: 07941 274423 [email protected] 1 Wildlife Splash CONTENTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 4 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 8 1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 8 1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE SURVEY............................................................................ 8 1.4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 9 1.5 HUMAN CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 12 2 METHODS .............................................................................................. 14 2.1 DESKTOP BIODIVERSITY SURVEY...................................................................... 14 2.2 HABITAT SURVEY ..................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Phase 1 habitat survey .................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Notable tree survey .......................................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Hedgerow assessment .................................................................................... 14 2.3 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY ........................................................................... 15 2.3.1 General ................................................................................................................. 15 2.3.2 Amphibians ......................................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Badger .................................................................................................................. 15 2.3.4 Bats ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.5 Biodiversity Action Plan species .................................................................. 16 2.3.6 Breeding birds ................................................................................................... 16 2.3.7 Dormouse ............................................................................................................ 16 2.3.8 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................... 16 2.3.9 Otter ...................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.10 Reptiles .............................................................................................................. 16 2.3.11 Water Vole ......................................................................................................... 17 2.4 ADDITIONAL SURVEYS AND RECORDING...................................................................... 17 2.5 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 17 3 RESULTS ............................................................................................... 18 3.1 DESKTOP BIODIVERSITY SURVEY...................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Protected species ............................................................................................. 18 3.1.2 Plant species ...................................................................................................... 24 3.1.3 Sites of Local or National importance ......................................................... 25 3.1.4 Priority habitats and connectivity ................................................................ 26 3.2 HABITATS AND FEATURES .................................................................................... 32 3.2.1 Ancient semi-natural woodland .................................................................... 32 3.2.2 Ancient woodland remnants and shaws..................................................... 33 3.2.3 Arable fields margins ....................................................................................... 33 3.2.4 Grassland ............................................................................................................ 34 3.2.5 Hedgerows .......................................................................................................... 34 3.2.6 Notable trees ...................................................................................................... 35 3.2.7 Orchard ................................................................................................................ 35 3.2.8 Plantation woodland ........................................................................................ 35 3.2.9 Ponds ................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.10 River corridor, small streams and ditches ............................................... 36 3.2.11 Ruderals and scrub ........................................................................................ 37 3.2.12 Scattered trees and tree-lines ..................................................................... 37 3.2.13 Swamp, fen and reedbed .............................................................................. 37 3.2.14 Plant species of note ..................................................................................... 39 3.2.15 Non-native invasive species ........................................................................ 40 2 Wildlife Splash 3.3 PROTECTED VERTEBRATES / INVERTEBRATES ............................................ 41 3.3.1 Amphibians ......................................................................................................... 41 3.3.2 Badger .................................................................................................................. 42 3.3.3 Bats ....................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.4 Biodiversity Action Plan species .................................................................. 43 3.3.5 Breeding Birds ................................................................................................... 44 3.3.6 Dormouse ............................................................................................................ 46 3.3.7 Fish ....................................................................................................................... 46 3.3.8 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................... 46 3.3.9 Otter ...................................................................................................................... 48 3.3.10 Reptiles .............................................................................................................. 48 3.3.11 Water Vole ......................................................................................................... 49 4 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LANDSCAPE AND CONNECTIVITY ...... 50 4.1.1 General ................................................................................................................. 50 4.1.2 Amphibians ......................................................................................................... 50 4.1.3 Badger .................................................................................................................. 51 4.1.4 Bats ....................................................................................................................... 51 4.1.5 Biodiversity Action Plan Species ................................................................. 52 4.1.6 Breeding birds ................................................................................................... 52 4.1.7 Dormouse ............................................................................................................ 52 4.1.8 Fish ....................................................................................................................... 53 4.1.9 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................... 53 4.1.10 Otter .................................................................................................................... 55 4.1.11 Reptiles .............................................................................................................. 55 4.1.12 Water Vole ......................................................................................................... 55 5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 57 5.1.1 Protected species and species diversity .................................................... 57 5.1.2 Habitat quality .................................................................................................... 57 5.1.3 Position in the ecological / geographical landscape ............................... 57 6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX I – PHASE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment June 2021
    Horsham Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Horsham District Council July 2021 Horsham Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Quality information Prepared by Checked by Verified by Approved by Damiano Weitowitz James Riley Max Wade James Riley Consultant Ecologist Technical Director Technical Director Technical Director Isla Hoffmann Heap Senior Ecologist Revision History Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position 0 13/10/20 Emerging draft JR James Riley Technical to inform plan Director development 1 18/12/20 Updated to JR James Riley Technical assess Director Regulation 19 LP. 2 15/01/2021 Update JR James Riley Technical following client Director comments 3 30/06/21 Further update JR James Riley Technical Director Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name Prepared for: Horsham District Council AECOM Horsham Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Prepared for: Horsham District Council Prepared by: AECOM Limited Midpoint, Alencon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom T: +44(0)1256 310200 aecom.com © 2021 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. Prepared for: Horsham District Council AECOM Horsham Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tortington and the Great War
    West Sussex & the Great War Project www.westsussexpast.org.uk Tortington and the Great War Family and faith in a rural Sussex parish Church of St Mary Magdalene, Tortington Photo J Henderson John Henderson © John Henderson and West Sussex County Council West Sussex & the Great War Project www.westsussexpast.org.uk The Church of St Mary Magdalene in Tortington, West Sussex Tortington is a small hamlet on the west bank of the River Arun, just two miles to the south of Arundel. Its parish church, built in the 12th century and dedicated to St Mary Magdalene and to St Thomas, owes its existence to a former Augustinian priory which stood on a site nearby until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century.1 The ‘Black Canons’ of the priory received an income as well as sustenance from the land farmed around them and until the 18th century agriculture and prayer were the only preoccupations of the parish. That was when brick-making began to offer alternative employment in Tortington and in the 19th century an iron foundry and engineering works added more economic diversity. At the southernmost end of the parish the coming of the railway in 1846, and by 1863 an inn and goods yards, saw yet more opportunities arise as well as adding several unfamiliar family names to the parish registers. In the early 20th century political and demographic factors were to alter the character of Tortington again, this time reversing the trend towards small industrial enterprises by virtue of a parish boundary change. In 1902 Arundel swallowed up parts of Tortington lying on either side of the Chichester road and these included Park Farm and the White Swan inn on the north side of the road and the area around Ford road on the south side.
    [Show full text]
  • View Characterisation and Analysis
    South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis Final Report Prepared by LUC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority November 2015 Project Title: 6298 SDNP View Characterisation and Analysis Client: South Downs National Park Authority Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by Director V1 12/8/15 Draft report R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern Swann V2 9/9/15 Final report R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern Swann V3 4/11/15 Minor changes to final R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern report Swann South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis Final Report Prepared by LUC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority November 2015 Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street London Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Bristol Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Glasgow 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 Edinburgh London NW1 1JD Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper LUC BRISTOL 12th Floor Colston Tower Colston Street Bristol BS1 4XE T +44 (0)117 929 1997 [email protected] LUC GLASGOW 37 Otago Street Glasgow G12 8JJ T +44 (0)141 334 9595 [email protected] LUC EDINBURGH 28 Stafford Street Edinburgh EH3 7BD T +44 (0)131 202 1616 [email protected] Contents 1 Introduction 1 Background to the study 1 Aims and purpose 1 Outputs and uses 1 2 View patterns, representative views and visual sensitivity 4 Introduction 4 View
    [Show full text]
  • Coarse Fishing Close Season on English Rivers
    Coarse fishing close season on English rivers Appendix 1 – Current coarse fish close season arrangements The close season on different waters In England, there is a coarse fish close season on all rivers, some canals and some stillwaters. This has not always been the case. In the 1990s, only around 60% of the canal network had a close season and in some regions, the close season had been dispensed with on all stillwaters. Stillwaters In 1995, following consultation, government confirmed a national byelaw which retained the coarse fish close season on rivers, streams, drains and canals, but dispensed with it on most stillwaters. The rationale was twofold: • Most stillwaters are discrete waterbodies in single ownership. Fishery owners can apply bespoke angling restrictions to protect their stocks, including non-statutory close times. • The close season had been dispensed with on many stillwaters prior to 1995 without apparent detriment to those fisheries. This presented strong evidence in favour of removing it. The close season is retained on some Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, as a precaution against possible damage to sensitive wildlife - see Appendix 1. This consultation is not seeking views on whether the close season should be retained on these stillwaters While most stillwater fishery managers have not re-imposed their own close season rules, some have, either adopting the same dates as apply to rivers or tailoring them to their waters' specific needs. Canals The Environment Agency commissioned a research project in 1997 to examine the evidence around the close season on canals to identify whether or not angling during the close season was detrimental to canal fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Walks & Strolls
    WALKS & STROLLS AUGUST - OCTOBER 2018 Dear Members, British Summer Time continues throughout this programme, so let’s use the long days to enjoy our walking and travelling. After a late start, early summer has been beautifully green, so we hope to see full harvests in due course. With our varied weather, plants and animals on the Downs have much to cope with each year and it’s interesting to see how they are affected. You’ll notice this time that several Saturdays do not have any of the longer walks. Several Saturday walks leaders have had health and/or age issues lately! They have mostly been covered by strolls on these days, which are particularly welcome. Thinking about strolls, sadly Peter Harris has found it necessary to say farewell as a strolls leader. We are most grateful for his contribution over the years, especially for his entertaining themed strolls, and hope we shall still see him out strolling from time to time. All your walk offers are valuable but arranging them suitably is not always easy. The same areas do seem to cluster. So it’s worked out that lunch at Burpham is popular - in successive walks. However they do cover quite different ground. And if some people had not been able to swap there would have been three. Let’s just call it “Love Burpham Week”! In general we are down on number of walks leaders. Ideally all walkers would take part in leading so there would be a large enough pool of leaders to cope with temporary unavailability.
    [Show full text]
  • A27 Arundel Bypass Consultation Response
    A27 7.2 Arundel Bypass Report on public consultation Appendix D Appendix Spring 2018 Appendix D7.2 – Stakeholder responses Community groups (part 2) www.arundelbypass.co.uk 6 November 2017 Attached is ABNC Evidence Section D, which completes our A27 Arundel Bypass consultation response. Thank you for agreeing to accept this evidence section by 6 November due to its dependence on work by traffic consultants RGP, who awaited information from yourselves, and by Gerald Eve LLP. The evidence consists of three reports, D1, D2 and D3. All three reports throw into question the Benefit Cost Ratio given by Highways England for Option 5A and show that this should be recalculated with a much higher cost and much less benefit. Section D1: Faulty Benefit Cost Calculations for Option 5A on Mitigation, Compensation and Biodiversity Offsetting As regards biodiversity, only the mitigation costs for the loss of Ancient Woodland appear to have been included in Highways England’s calculation of Benefit Cost Ratios. However, the loss of biodiversity from Option 5A is even greater than for Option 3, as is shown by the comparative table of impacts on habitats and species at ABNC Evidence C1. Irreplaceable habitats which would be lost include wet woodland, a chalk stream, lowland fen communities, and veteran trees. All are Habitats of Principal Importance under the NERC Act 2006. A list of 12 necessary mitigation measures is given in this section. Since these habitats are irreplaceable, as well as mitigation, compensation measures would be needed for Option 5A, such as planting large areas of new native woodland, for instance on farm fields made unusable by Option 5A.
    [Show full text]
  • Nov 2018 – Jan 2019 Walks, Strolls & Events
    Nov 2018 – Jan 2019 Walks, Strolls & Events South Downs Walks and Strolls Programme Registered Office: 2 Swan Court, Station Road, Pulborough, West Sussex RH20 1RL Tel: 01798 875073 Email: [email protected] www. southdownssociety.org.uk The Society is a limited company by guarantee, registered No. 319437 and is a registered charity No.230329 Dear Members This autumn/winter brings a fine range of walks and strolls. Thankfully as one or two leaders drop out, others return from sickness and injury. Thank you all leaders for your continuing efforts to fill our programme. As we write this letter, the weather is perfect for walking. We have recovered from the summer's heat, which was too much for some of us, but we now start to consider the possibility of mud! One strolls leader has entitled her mini-series 'On Sussex Hills' after the Sussex drinking song composed by Hilaire Belloc and sung frequently by the South Downs Folk Singers. Many other leaders have obviously been thinking the same, alert to the difficulties last winter and spring brought us - spot the hills in the titles! Some of you have been asking about numbers on walks. For the May to July programme the average was 6 or 7 per walk. Certainly in the very hot weather many stayed at home. Hopefully we shall see some of you at the Christmas lunch on 7th December and at the Christmas Walk and Stroll on 13th December with lunch at the The Shepherd and Dog, Fulking followed by Carols in Newtimber Church. Rosemary Warren (Walks co-ordinator).
    [Show full text]
  • 19 Duncton to Bignor Escarpment SAC
    Submitted to Client: Submitted by: South Downs National Park AECOM Authority Midpoint Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom South Downs National Park Authority Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2018 AECOM South Downs National Park Authority Page ii Prepared by: Isla Hoffmann Heap Checked by: Dr James Riley Senior Ecologist Technical Director Approved by: Dr James Riley Associate Director Rev No Comments Checked Approved Date by by 0 DRAFT IHH JR 05/05/17 1 Following client comments IHH JR 30/06/17 2 Incorporating air quality impact assessment IHH JR 01/08/17 3 Updated to address Pre-Submission Local Plan and IHH JR 13/09/17 incorporate air quality analysis for Ashdown Forest SAC 4 Update to reflect Consultation Comments and policy update IHH JR 16/03/18 5 New report produced in response to Sweetman European MK JR 24/07/18 Court of Justice ruling Midpoint, Alençon Link, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 7PP, United Kingdom Telephone: 01256 310 200 Website: http://www.aecom.com July 2018 Limitations South Downs National Park Authority Local Plan Habitats Regulations July 2018 Assessment AECOM South Downs National Park Authority Page iii AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of the South Downs National Park Authority (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.
    [Show full text]
  • CLC Boundary Map April 2011
    CRAWLEY ELECTORAL DIVISIONS 51 Langley Green & West Green HORSHAM ELECTORAL DIVISIONS 52 Northgate & Three Bridges 24 Storrington 53 Worth & Pound Hill North 25 Bramber Castle 54 Gossops Green & Ifield East 26 Pulborough 55 Bewbush & Ifield West West Sussex County Local Committees 27 Henfield 56 Broadfield 28 Billingshurst 57 Southgate & Crawley Central 29 Southwater & Nuthurst 58 Tilgate & Furnace Green With effect from April 2011 30 Warnham & Rusper 51 59 Maidenbower & Pound Hill South 31 Horsham Tanbridge & Broadbridge Heath 32 Horsham Hurst 53 62 33 Horsham Riverside CRAWLEY East 34 Roffey NWorth o r61 t h 35 Holbrook 52 Grinstead Rusper 54 BOROUGH Ashurst M i d 63 Wood 30 57 59 North Horsham 55 Warnham 58 East Crawley 56West Crawley TurnersS Hill u s s e x CHICHESTER 35 60 ELECTORAL DIVISIONS Rudgwick Broadbridge Colgate West 1 The Witterings Heath 34 Hoathly 2 Selsey Slinfold Linchmere Plaistow & Ifold 32 3 Chichester South Loxwood Horsham Balcombe Ardingly 4 Chichester East 31 33 5 Chichester West Northchapel 6 Bourne Linch 64 North Horsham Horsted 7 Chichester North Lurgashall Itchingfield MID SUSSEX DISTRICT Lower Slaugham Keynes 8 Midhurst Southwater 9 Fernhurst Milland Fernhurst Beeding Ebernoe 29 10 Petworth Kirdford Nuthurst Central Mid Sussex Lindfield 10 Billingshurst Ansty & 28 Staplefield Cuckfield Urban Woolbeding 66 Rogate 67 Lodsworth HORSHAM DISTRICT Haywards Lindfield Heath 65 Rural North Chichester Wisborough Green Bolney 8 Stedham Easebourne Shipley Midhurst Cowfold with Tillington Petworth Chithurst Iping Trotton
    [Show full text]
  • West Sussex County Council Monument Full Report 20/09/2018 Number of Records: 27 Boundary Markers in West Sussex
    West Sussex County Council Monument Full Report 20/09/2018 Number of records: 27 Boundary Markers in West Sussex SMR Number Site Name Record Type MWS1392 Gunters Stone Boundary Marker Monument Gunters Stone is a triangular boundary stone on the Hampshire/Sussex border. Monument Types and Dates BOUNDARY MARKER (Unknown date) Evidence STRUCTURE Description and Sources Description Gunters Stone is a triangular boundary stone on the Hampshire/Sussex border.{1}{2} Sources (1) Map: OS. 1963. 6inch (2) Bibliographic reference: Aldsworth F G. 1975. SU70NW1. Associated resources - None recorded Location National Grid Reference SU 7429 0950 (point) SU70NW Administrative Areas Civil Parish Stoughton, Chichester, West Sussex District Chichester, West Sussex Address/Historic Names - None recorded Designations, Statuses and Scorings Associated Designations - None recorded Other Statuses and Cross-References SHINE Candidate (Possible) Active Sites & Monuments Record - 37 Active OS Number - SU70NW1 Active Ratings and Scorings - None recorded Land Use Associated Historic Landscape Character Records - None recorded Other Land Classes - None recorded Related Monuments - None Recorded Finds - None recorded Associated Events/Activities - None recorded Associated Individuals/Organisations - None recorded MonFullRpt Report generated by HBSMR from exeGesIS SDM Ltd Page 1 SMR Number MWS1771 Site Name Roman Building and Palisade, Broadbridge SMR Number Site Name Record Type MWS1771 Roman Building and Palisade, Broadbridge Monument Monument Types and Dates BOUNDARY MARKER (Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD) Evidence DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FINDSPOT (Domestic-fitting, Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD) Evidence DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BUILDING (Building-unclassified, Roman - 200 AD to 299 AD) Evidence DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Description and Sources Description Trial excavation in 1967 on the site of a proposed telephone exchange, 65yds.
    [Show full text]
  • A27 Arundel Bypass Preferred Route Announcement
    A27 Arundel Bypass Preferred route announcement Spring 2018 A27 Arundel Bypass Preferred route announcement Introduction Why is the scheme needed? As the only east-west trunk road south of the M25, Road safety is also a concern with an above At Highways England, we believe in a the A27 serves a population of more than 750,000 average number of accidents on this section connected country and our network people, and connects a number of coastal of the A27, while congestion around Arundel makes these connections happen. communities between Portsmouth and Pevensey, results in some drivers seeking alternative routes near Eastbourne. On average, West Sussex which are less suited to accommodating higher We strive to improve our major roads also attracts 17 million visitor days per year, traffic flows. These alternatives include the and motorways – engineering the which, according to VisitBritain, is worth around B2139 through the South Downs National Park, future to keep people moving today £508 million to the local economy1. disrupting the otherwise tranquil nature of the and moving better tomorrow. We want Park. Residents in local towns and villages are The A27 is currently a dual carriageway on also affected by increases in through traffic. to make sure all our major roads are either side of Arundel, but the single carriageway more dependable, durable and, most section and junctions through the town cannot cope with today’s traffic volumes. In recognition of these problems, the Government, importantly, safe. That’s why we’re in its Road Investment Strategy 2015-2020, set delivering £15 billion of investment on Long queues approaching Arundel are out its intention to replace “the existing single our network – the largest investment in commonplace and, with the population predicted carriageway road with a dual carriageway bypass, to rise across the region in future, congestion linking together the 2 existing dual carriageway a generation.
    [Show full text]
  • A27 Arundel Bypass Environmental Assessment Report
    A27 Arundel Bypass Environmental Assessment Report Appendix 1-1: South Downs National Park Special Quality Assessment 30 August 2019 SDNP Special Quality Assessment A27 Arundel Bypass – PCF Stage 2 Further Consultation Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the report 1-1 1.2 Overview of the project 1-1 1.3 SDNP special qualities 1-2 1.4 Structure of the SDNP special qualities assessment report 1-3 1.5 Legislative and policy framework 1-4 1.6 Sub-regional and local planning policy 1-8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 - SDNP special qualities assessment structure 1-3 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Assessment process 2-1 2.3 Potential impacts 2-3 2.4 Guidance 2-4 2.5 Assessment results 2-12 2.6 Assumptions and limitations 2-13 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 - Types of impact associated with each special quality 2-4 Table 2-2 - Alignment between DMRB and the potential impacts identified 2-6 Table 2-3 - General assumptions and limitations 2-13 August 2019 SDNP Special Quality Assessment A27 Arundel Bypass – PCF Stage 2 Further Consultation 3 SPECIAL QUALITY 1: DIVERSE, INSPIRATIONAL LANDSCAPES AND BREATHTAKING VIEWS 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Assessment methodology 3-2 3.3 Assessment assumptions and limitations 3-5 3.4 Study Area 3-5 3.5 Baseline conditions 3-5 3.6 Scoping 3-5 3.7 Design, mitigation and enhancement 3-6 3.8 Assessment of potential impacts 3-9 3.9 Summary of landscape character, visual amenity and experience 3-18 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 - Assessment assumptions and limitations for SQ1 3-5 Table 3-2
    [Show full text]