Saredon (Hill) Quarry

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Saredon (Hill) Quarry Saredon (Hill) Quarry: Discharge of Condition 47 (Tree and Hedgerow Planting and Protection) on Planning Permission SS.12/15/602 MW Revised and expanded, May 2016 Introduction The proposals fall into five main areas, as follows: 1. Works to existing tree belts to the north of the haul road (groups G1 to G3, as shown on Wardell Armstrong drawing ST12713-036 Rev. A, April 2014, appended to Arboricultural Assessment) – including protection measures for trees to be retained and understorey planting; 2. Planting of a new hedgerow (incorporating two oak trees) on the western boundary to the materials storage area (south-west of the haul road tree belts); 3. Planting of four more oak trees on the eastern boundary of the quarry site, south of the main entrance; 4. Planting of a new hedgerow on the south and west sides of the south-west corner of the active quarry area, with the creation of 2.5-metre high earth bunds behind the hedge lines (seeded with grass); 5. Planting of a new hedgerow on the outer side of the existing grassed bund on the southern boundary of the eastern portion of the quarry site, as shown on Wardell Armstrong Mitigation Strategy drawing, ST12713-035. The operations likewise fall into six categories: 1. Selective tree felling and cutting back in Area 1; 2. Understorey shrub planting in Area 1; 3. Hedgerow planting in Areas 2, 4 & 5; 4. Tree planting in Areas 2, 3, 4 & 5; 5. Tree/hedgerow protection (barriers) in all areas; 6. Maintenance and aftercare; replacement of dead stock (all areas) These are dealt with in turn below. 1.0 Tree Felling and Cutback in Area 1 1.1 The specification for these works has already been provided in the Wardell Armstrong document entitled Arboricultural Survey and Landscape Recommendations (April 2014). Paragraphs 2.3.1-2 discuss the tree types and split them into three groups, identified as ‘G1’, ‘G2’ and ‘G3’ on drawing ST12713-036 (Revision A). G1 and G2 are sycamores on the southern side of the tree belt, nearest to the haul road. The G1 trees have had their root protection areas (RPAs) severed by the construction of the haul road about one metre below the ground level, whilst the G2 group have had 1 part of the same road constructed over their RPAs. The northern side of the tree belt consists of a line of beech trees, which have suffered less root disturbance. 1.2 Out of a total of around 170 trees, the Wardell Armstrong document recommends felling some 30 trees marked with an ‘X’ on site, which are dead, dying, in poor condition or preventing neighbouring trees of higher quality from flourishing. Another 40 trees, marked with a ‘C’, are to be cut back to around 2 metres in height to promote vigorous reaction growth and so thicken up and strengthen the visual barrier (2.3.3), as well as allowing the beech trees to the north to produce more growth southwards (2.3.5). The report acknowledges that the trees are generally of low quality, having been planted at too high a density. They suffer from ‘etiolation’; that is, they have grown with tall, narrow trunks and few branches or leaves below the crown level, due to being planted too close together and having to compete against each other to reach the light. Some of the trees have also been affected by ‘windthrow’; that is, they have been uprooted or broken by the wind. 1.3 Further details of the tree classifications are provided in Appendix 1 to the Arboricultural Survey. Some of the damaged or dead trees may already have been removed in the intervening period. The red ‘X’ and ‘C’ markings are, in any case, no longer visible. The majority of the proposed work does not appear to have been carried out and the original survey was stated to be valid only until April 2016 (2.3.7). The County Council’s Landscape Officer has therefore requested an updated Arboricultural Survey, which will be commissioned and submitted as soon as possible. The basic principle of cutting back selected existing trees to two metres in height and then re-coppicing them every five years (to maintain a dense visual barrier) is to be incorporated within the new Survey recommendations. 1.4 The felling of dead, dying or diseased trees must be carried out by a qualified tree surgeon, outside of the bird breeding season (March to August). Checks for bat roosting must also be carried out by a licensed ecologist. Felled trees are to be cut into logs and piled up within the tree belt to act as habitat for invertebrates and other wildlife (2.3.4). 2.0 Understorey shrub planting in Area 1 2.1 Despite acknowledging the harm caused by overplanting and etiolation, the Survey goes on to recommend more tree and shrub planting within belts G1/2 and G3, using additional species to create more diversity and greater wildlife and visual amenity value. We do not feel that additional planting of competitive, larger tree species is advisable at this stage, as it would be better to allow the healthier beech trees room to expand and flourish. We do, however, see some value in establishing an understorey of suitable shrubs and smaller trees. Nevertheless, the County Council’s Landscape Officer has requested that, where dead, dying or damaged trees are felled and the canopy opened up, ultimately larger species should be preferred as replacements. In this revised scheme, a 10% quantity of English oak has therefore been introduced and the proposed rowan percentage reduced accordingly. 2.2 The rationale behind this is that the new oak saplings should be allowed to grow ultimately into high canopy trees, rather than being included among the trees to be coppiced. The best, mature trees are to be retained to provide a well-furnished canopy, which will be allowed to continue developing in the longer term. In-between those trees, existing trees that are still healthy and viable are to be coppiced to provide infill/screening value (both vertically and horizontally) between the higher quality, mature, taller specimens. This should result in a tree belt that is both an effective vegetative screen and also has visual quality as a feature within the landscape. New planting is to be located where dead or dying trees have had to be removed. These principles are to be reflected in the report recommendations following the updated Arboricultural Survey. 2 2.3 Looking at table ‘C’ at the top of drawing ST12713-037 Rev. A, therefore, we propose omission of the beech, Irish oak, silver birch and hornbeam trees and retention of the species suited to an understorey layer, with their percentage in the mix increased accordingly: • Common hazel (Corylus avellana) – 25% of mix • Common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) – 15% • Field maple (Acer campestre) – 15% • Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) – 15% • English or pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) – 10% • Wild cherry (Prunus avium) – 10% • Common holly (Ilex aquifolium) – 10% 2.4 The benefits of these species to wildlife are discussed below: • Field maple is the UK’s only native maple species; though it can grow into a tree, it is more commonly seen as a hedgerow shrub, because it responds well to being cut back and trimmed, growing back vigorously with numerous new shoots. The honeydew produced by the leaves is a good source of food for white hairstreak butterflies and the leaves also support the caterpillars of several moth species. The environment of this shrub is attractive to orchids and therefore also to their predators (e.g. ladybird, hoverfly, birds); the flowers provide nectar and pollen for bees and birds and the fruit is eaten by small mammals. • Rowan – its leaves are eaten by caterpillars of a number of moths, including the larger Welsh wave and autumn green carpet. Caterpillars of the apple fruit moth feed on the berries. The flowers provide pollen and nectar for bees and other pollinating insects, while the berries are a rich source of autumn food for birds, especially the blackbird, mistle thrush, redstart, redwing, song thrush, fieldfare and waxwing. • Holly provides dense cover and good nesting opportunities for birds, while its deep, dry leaf litter may be used by hedgehogs and small mammals for hibernation. The flowers provide nectar and pollen for bees and other pollinating insects. The leaves are eaten by caterpillars of the holly blue butterfly, along with those of various moths, including the yellow barred brindle, double-striped pug and the holly tortrix. The smooth leaves found at the tops of holly trees are a winter source of food for deer. The berries are a vital source of food for birds in winter, and are also eaten by small mammals such as wood mice and dormice. • Wild cherry – Its spring flowers provide an early source of nectar and pollen for bees, while the cherries are eaten by birds, including the blackbird and song thrush, as well as mammals such as the badger, wood mouse, yellow necked mouse and dormouse. The foliage is the main food plant for caterpillars of many species of moth, including the cherry fruit and cherry bark moths, the orchard ermine, brimstone and short cloaked moth. • Hazel is also a common hedging plant. As well as supporting five species of moth that are specialist feeders on hazel, this plant is extremely important to many invertebrates, birds and mammals because of the protein-rich nuts it produces during the autumn. • Hawthorn: a very common shrub, extensively used for hedging and also stock fencing, as its spiky structure discourages browsing by horses or other animals.
Recommended publications
  • Shield Bugs and \Toodland Composition in Epping Forest
    Field Studies6 (1985),253-268 SHIELD BUGS AND \TOODLAND COMPOSITION IN EPPING FOREST PAUL H. DULSTICH* EppingForest Conseraation Centre ABsrRAcr The distribution of five speciesof shield bug was studied with different host plant species,structure, condition and age in Epping Forest, Essex. Stands of beech, birch and oak-hornbeam, as well as scrubland gorse and hawthorn, were sampled, each tree being characterisedb1 a variet.vofparameters including bole circumference, pollard- ing and defoliation class. Correlations between shield bug species and host plant character were expressedthtough chi-squared analysesof presencelabsencedata for the samples.Resuits suggesta high degreeofhost specificity amongst the phytophage species studied and probably a preference for earlv successionalplant stages.Prei- erential utilisation of mature and non-defoliated hosts is aiso apparenr. The resuits are discussedin terms ofthe requirements ofthe bugs and the nutritional vaiue ofthe host. Ir is conciuded that nitrogen availability within and between host plant species is likeiy to be highly influential in deterrnining the diet and distribution of shielcj bugs, and indeed other selecrive-feedingheteroptera. INrRonucrroN Epprxc Fonssr comprisesof 2430hectares of woodland and grasslandwith small pockets of scrub and heathland, extending from the Wanstead Flats in the London Borough of Redbridge, north for approximarely l9 krn, just beyond Epping in Essex.The principal trce speciesare treech(Fagus sylz;atica),birch (Betula pendula and B. pubescens))common oak (Qtte r ctrs r obur) and hornbeam (C arp inus be tulu s). Pollen data indicate the late survival of the lir-:.e(Tilia) until about AD600 as the dominant tree species)then giving way to the familiar woodland associationsseen today.
    [Show full text]
  • Glasgow Necropolis (November 2010) Group Formal Name
    Glasgow Necropolis (November 2010) Group Formal Name Common Name Earliest RecordLatest Record annelid Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 Common Earthworm 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 bird Accipiter nisus (Linnaeus, 1758) Sparrowhawk 29/07/2010 29/07/2010 bird Aegithalos caudatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Long-tailed Tit 18/03/2009 18/03/2009 bird Carduelis carduelis (Linnaeus, 1758) Goldfinch 05/04/2008 26/05/2010 bird Carduelis chloris (Linnaeus, 1758) Greenfinch 05/04/2008 09/06/2010 bird Erithacus rubecula (Linnaeus, 1758) Robin 05/04/2008 05/04/2008 bird Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus, 1758 Kestrel 09/06/2010 09/06/2010 bird Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus, 1758 Chaffinch 05/04/2008 26/05/2010 bird Parus major Linnaeus, 1758 Great Tit 05/04/2008 05/04/2008 bird Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) Magpie 11/05/2005 11/05/2005 bird Prunella modularis (Linnaeus, 1758) Dunnock 26/05/2010 26/05/2010 bird Sturnus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 Starling 11/05/2005 11/05/2005 bird Troglodytes troglodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) Wren 05/04/2008 09/06/2010 bird Turdus merula Linnaeus, 1758 Blackbird 11/05/2005 26/05/2010 bird Turdus viscivorus Linnaeus, 1758 Mistle Thrush 09/05/2006 29/07/2010 centipede Geophilus flavus (De Geer, 1778) 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 centipede Lithobius (Lithobius) forficatus (Linnaeus, 1758) the common centipede 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 centipede Stigmatogaster subterranea (Shaw, 1789) 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum L. Stag's-horn Clubmoss 25/08/1985 1988 conifer Chamaecyparis pisifera (Siebold & Zucc.) Siebold & Zucc. Sawara Cypress July 2006 July 2006 fern Asplenium ruta-muraria L.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage 211 Q3 2013
    No. 211 1 July - 30 September 2013 Editorial Panel: Helen Ikin, Steve Woodward, Jim Graham. Hon. Sec. Judy Johnson, 27 Sandalwood Road, Loughborough, Leics. LE11 3PR (01509-214711) IVY Hedera helix - A PLANT FOR ALL SEASONS Ivy, our only evergreen native climbing plant, is well known to butterfly enthusiasts as being the second generation food plant of the Holly Blue larvae but I suspect far fewer appreciate its importance to large numbers of moth species such as The Chestnut, Dark Chestnut, Dark Sword-grass, Tawny Pinion, Green-brindled Crescent, The Satellite and Red-line Quaker. It is also one of two main larval food plants of an attractive little geometer moth, the Yellow-barred Brindle, whose other main food plant is the Holly - like the Holly Blue! Ivy also provides important winter hibernating cover for The Brimstone, The Peacock and numerous other insect species. It gives protection to hibernating insects and roosting birds in the worst of the winter's weather when the countryside becomes a wind-swept, hostile place to all living organisms and when decent shelter can make all the difference between life and death to creatures fighting to stay alive and doing their best to avoid being blown into oblivion! Like many another conservation-minded person, I guess, I went through a phase in my life when I thought that Ivy growing on trees was a bad thing and should therefore be prevented by cutting IN THIS EDITION CLASSIFIED RECORDS Ÿ Mammals Page 2 Ÿ Birds Page 3 Ÿ Reptiles and Amphibians Page 7 Ÿ Fish Page 8 Ÿ Butterflies Page 9 Ivy © Stephen Woodward Ÿ Moths Page 13 through the stems - how dangerous a little Ÿ Beetles Page 15 knowledge can be! With the passage of time and more knowledge, I now realise that Ivy is Ÿ Other Insects Page 18 ecologically one of our most important native plant Ÿ species and often more important than some of Plants and Ferns Page 22 the tree species up which it climbs for support.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate Survey Report
    Ashfield Land Management and Gazeley GLP Northampton s.à.r.l Annex K: Invertebrate Survey Report Rail Central 855950 FEBRUARY 2018 Commissioned by RSK Environment Ltd Abbey Park Humber Road Coventry CV3 4AQ RAIL CENTRAL SITE, NORTHAMPTON INVERTEBRATE SURVEY REPORT Report number BS/3015/16 October 2016 Prepared by Colin Plant Associates (UK) Consultant Entomologists 14 West Road Bishops Stortford Hertfordshire CM23 3QP 01279-507697 [email protected] Rail Central Site, Northamptonshire 2 Colin Plant Associates (UK) Invertebrate Survey Report Consultant Entomologists October 2016 Report number BS/3015/16 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Colin Plant Associates (UK) are pleased to credit the input of the following personnel: Field work for this project has been undertaken by Marcel Ashby Tristan Bantock Colin W. Plant Identification of samples has been undertaken by Marcel Ashby Tristan Bantock Peter Chandler Norman Heal Edward Milner Colin W. Plant Rail Central Site, Northamptonshire 3 Colin Plant Associates (UK) Invertebrate Survey Report Consultant Entomologists October 2016 Report number BS/3015/16 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introductory comments 1.1.1 Colin Plant Associates (UK) were commissioned on 12th July 2016 by RSK Ltd to undertake an assessment of terrestrial invertebrate ecology at the Rail Central Site in Northamptonshire (“the site”). 1.1.2 Three sampling sessions were undertaken. An initial walkover survey of the whole site was performed on 21st July 2016; on this date, all areas of the site were seen and most were visited, with the aim of defining the areas likely to be most representative of the whole site. 1.1.3 Invertebrate species sampling was then undertaken on the next day, 22nd July, on 7th August and finally on 18th September 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheldon Field DRAFT Management Plan
    SShheellddoonn FFiieelldd CCrrooppwweellll BBuuttlleerr DDRRAAFFTT MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPllaann 22001133 –– 22001177 Sheldon Field Acknowledgements Rushcliffe Borough Council and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust would like to thank the many organisations and individuals who were involved in the development of this management plan For further information about this site and it’s management please contact: The Sheldon Field Management Committee Page 2 of 24 Sheldon Field CONTENTS: PART 1: SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 4 1.1 Location............................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Map Coverage ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Size...................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Ownership/Tenure............................................................................................... 4 1.5 Local Planning Authority .................................................................................... 4 1.6 Soil and geology .............................................................................................… 4 1.7 Aspect, topography and altitude.......................................................................... 5 1.8 Statutory Designations…..................................................................................... 5
    [Show full text]
  • Project Title: Rapid DNA-Based Identification of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, Halyomorpha Halys
    Project title: Rapid DNA-based identification of brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys Project number: CP 197 Project leader: Glen Powell, NIAB EMR Report: Final report, February 2020 Previous report: None Key staff: NIAB EMR Glen Powell, Celine Silva QMUL Elizabeth Clare, Joseph Trafford, Rosie Drinkwater Location of project: Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) NIAB EMR Industry Representative: N/A Date project commenced: 1 November 2019 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2020. All rights reserved DISCLAIMER While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts no liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused (including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. © Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board [2020]. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including by photocopy or storage in any medium by electronic mean) or any copy or adaptation stored, published or distributed (by physical, electronic or other means) without prior permission in writing of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, other than by reproduction in an unmodified form for the sole purpose of use as an information resource when the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board or AHDB Horticulture is clearly acknowledged as the source, or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwork STAN Trust, a Company Limited by Guarantee and Registered in England
    27 November 2017 Response to Examiners Questions 1 Examining Authority, I am writing to you on behalf of Groundwork South Tyneside & Newcastle in response to the relevant questions from ExQ1 dated 22 November 2017. I have only provided a response to a question where we have something to add or for clarification purposes. As supporting evidence I have also enclosed an up to date list of species on site as notably hedgehogs were not included in the ES. You will also find our latest educational pack which details our offer to schools and some visitor information. Responses to questions: 1.0.8 - None. 1.0.9 - We are clear about the relationship between the CEMP and the HEMP and satisfied with these documents 1.1.8 - We are satisfied with the data and assumptions that inform the air quality assessment. 1.2.1 - Bullet point 1: Please see enclosed list of species, education pack and visitor information. 1.2.1 - Bullet point 3: Paths on the west side of WBEEC will be impacted but it does not reference this. 1.2.1 - Bullet point 4: Yes, reinstatement of paths on the west side. 1.2.2 - We agree with the conclusion. 1.2.3 - We agree with the conclusion and that there is appropriate mitigation of effects. Should you have any further queries with regard to this letter or wish to discuss any matters in more detail please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Colin Winfield Operations Manager Groundwork South Tyneside and Newcastle. The Eco Centre, Windmill Way, Hebburn, Tyne & Wear, NE31 1SR Tel: 0191 428 1144 • Email: [email protected] • www.groundwork.org.uk/stan Groundwork South Tyneside & Newcastle is the trading name of Groundwork STAN Trust, a company limited by guarantee and registered in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) Halyomorpha Halys in Scotland
    Monitoring for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) Halyomorpha halys in Scotland PHC2019/01 - Project Final Report This work was commissioned by Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Plant Health Funded by Scottish Government through the Rural & Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) Division under grant agreement No PHC2019/01 Authors: Gaynor Malloch1*, Alison Dolan1, Carolyn Mitchell1, Ailsa Smith1, Fiona Highet2, Yvonne Arnsdorf 2, Helen Payne2, Alistair Hamilton3 and Andy Evans3 1 James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA 2 SASA 1 Roddinglaw Road, Edinburgh, EH12 9FJ 3 SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG *Corresponding Author Please cite this report as follows: G. Malloch, A. Dolan, C. Mitchell, A. Smith, F. Highet, Y. Arnsdorf, H. Payne, A. Hamilton and A. Evans. (Jan 2021) Monitoring for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) Halyomorpha halys in Scotland: Project Final Report. PHC2019/01. Scotland's Centre of Expertise for Plant Health (PHC). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4588455 Available online at: planthealthcentre.scot/publications Dissemination status: Unrestricted Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified or stored in a retrieval system without the prior written permission of PHC management. While every effort is made to ensure that the information given here is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. All statements, views and opinions expressed in this paper are attributable to the author(s) who contribute to the activities of the PHC and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders. Details of Copyright Images on front page and on page 6: Top left - Newly-hatched egg mass, Gary Bernon, USDA APHIS, Bugwood.org; Top Right - Halymorpha haly nymph dorsal, Steven Valley, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Bugwood.org; Bottom - Halymorpha haly adult dorsal Steven Valley, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Bugwood.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate Appraisal.Pdf
    Commissioned by RSK Carter Ecological Still House Lane Bedminster Bristol BS3 4EB SOUTH SEBASTOPOL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INVERTEBRATE APPRAISAL Report number BS/2523/10 August 2010 Prepared by Colin Plant Associates (UK) Consultant Entomologists 14 West Road Bishops Stortford Hertfordshire CM23 3QP 01279-507697 [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1.1 Colin Plant Associates (UK) were commissioned by RSK Carter Ecological Ltd to undertake an investigation of invertebrates at a proposed development site at South Sebastopol, neat Pontypool in South Wales. 1.2 The terrestrial site survey was required to “cover all invertebrate habitats, with a particular focus on specific habitats of known importance for invertebrates such as marshes, ancient woodland and ruderal areas, and will include survey for Coleoptera including Glow-worm. Surveys will use a combination of three techniques: • sweeping (using a standard sweep net in grasslands and scrub); • beating (using a beating tray for hedgerows and trees); and • hand searching (where appropriate, particularly in bare ground habitats)”. 1.3 Further, “an additional survey is required for late season invertebrates (e.g. the shrill carder bee Bombus sylvarum). A single site survey in August will be undertaken to coincide with peak activity”. 1.4 In terms of the aquatic element of the invertebrate survey, we were instructed that “Aquatic invertebrate survey will be carried out using a standard FBA pond net. A baseline sample will be collected from streams and the canal in order to assess diversity and conservation importance of aquatic macro-invertebrates present. Key aquatic invertebrate groups which will be identified to species include Coleoptera (Water Beetles), Heteroptera (Water bugs) and Odonata (Dragonflies), with additional groups recorded where these are of conservation importance (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Species List (Version 2019.1 June 2019) Compiled by Dr Stephen Walker Msc(EDM), Cgeog
    The Moor Pond Woods Project, Papplewick Draft Species list (version 2019.1 June 2019) Compiled by Dr Stephen Walker MSc(EDM), CGeog NOTES: 1. Only species reported as present in the project area are included, some species reported elsewhere in the parish have not yet been noted within the project area. 2. Localities (Related to the ‘Site Description’ document). a. PDW = Papplewick Dam Wood (compartments 1a, 1b and 1c) b. MPWN = Dam Banks woodland area (compartment 2a) c. MPWC = Dam Banks grassland area (compartments 2b, 2c and 2e) d. MPWS = Moor Pond wood (compartments 2d, 2f, 2g and 2h) e. GCW = Grange Cottages wood (compartments 3a, 3b and 3c) 3. Reporter and date is the report of the first confirmed sighting in the project area (subsequent sightings elsewhere in the project area are subsumed in this entry). Please report evidence of additional species with (1) Name (either English common name or formal latin name) (2) Exact location (6 figure grid reference preferred) (3) Date (4) Notes about form, abundance, frequency, habitat etc Reports to [email protected] or ‘Woodland View’, 143, Moor Road, Papplewick. NG15 8EP Moor Pond Woods, Papplewick: Species list v2019.1 (3rd draft) Order Family Name Common name PDW MPWN MPWC MPWS GCW First report Date BONY FISH Scorpaeniformes Cottidae Cottus gobio Miller's thumb (or Bullhead) Y Fraser&Sheppard 2001 AMPHIBIANS Anura Bufonidae Bufo bufo Common toad Y L Scudder 2003 Caudata Salamandridae Triturus vulgaris Smooth Newt Y Y L.Scudder 2003 SPIDERS Araneae Clubionidae Clubiona corticalis
    [Show full text]
  • Annex K: Invertebrate Survey Report Rail Central
    Ashfield Land Management Annex K: Invertebrate Survey Report Rail Central 855950 CONSULTATION DRAFT - JULY 2017 Commissioned by RSK Environment Ltd Abbey Park Humber Road Coventry CV3 4AQ RAIL CENTRAL SITE, NORTHAMPTON INVERTEBRATE SURVEY REPORT Report number BS/3015/16 October 2016 Prepared by Colin Plant Associates (UK) Consultant Entomologists 14 West Road Bishops Stortford Hertfordshire CM23 3QP 01279-507697 [email protected] Rail Central Site, Northamptonshire 2 Colin Plant Associates (UK) Invertebrate Survey Report Consultant Entomologists October 2016 Report number BS/3015/16 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Colin Plant Associates (UK) are pleased to credit the input of the following personnel: Field work for this project has been undertaken by Marcel Ashby Tristan Bantock Colin W. Plant Identification of samples has been undertaken by Marcel Ashby Tristan Bantock Peter Chandler Norman Heal Edward Milner Colin W. Plant Rail Central Site, Northamptonshire 3 Colin Plant Associates (UK) Invertebrate Survey Report Consultant Entomologists October 2016 Report number BS/3015/16 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introductory comments 1.1.1 Colin Plant Associates (UK) was commissioned on 12 th July 2016 by RSK Ltd to undertake an assessment of terrestrial invertebrate ecology at the Rail Central Site in Northamptonshire (“the site”). 1.1.2 Three sampling sessions were undertaken. An initial walkover survey of the whole site was performed on 21 st July 2016; on this date, all areas of the site were seen and most were visited, with the aim of defining the areas likely to be most representative of the whole site. 1.1.3 Invertebrate species sampling was then undertaken on the next day, 22 nd July, on 7 th August and finally on 18 th September 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Cockroaches and Mantids Order Dictyoptera
    COCKROACHES AND Common Cockroach or Black Beetle MANTIDS Walla "rimlatis ORDER DICTYOPTERA Females are squat, blackish, about 25mm long, with greatly reduced wings. Males are Cockroaches are broad, flattened, robust similar in size, but are browner, with longer insects, with long antennae. The broad pro• wings, although they are still flightless. The notum covers the thorax and most of the egg-case is white, darkening to black, and head. Hindwings leathery, usually shorter in the female carries it for the first few days. the female than the male. The mantids are Nocturnal. closely related, but look rather different, Habitat Native to tropical Asia or Africa, with slender bodies, a long neck, and but now widespread in houses, bakeries, enlarged front legs. They are highly preda• and anywhere warm but dirty. tory, and females often eat the males dur• Status and distribution Common in ing copulation. The eggs are laid in frothy suitable places throughout. masses which harden, and may often be Season At any time, depending on the Australian Cockroach found when the adults are no longer visible. warmth of the habitat. Similar species Cockroaches German Cockroach Blatella germanica is Suborder Blattodea paler and more slender, fully winged and able to fly, though rarely does so. Similar Several tropical species have become well habitats and distribution. established in N Europe in houses and other buildings, as pests. There are also Tawny Cockroach several native species, which have no asso• J-:cI,,/Jilis fil111idlls ciation with man. One of the native cockroaches, which are much smaller than the introduced species. Australian Cockroach This species reaches IOmm in length, is Peri/Jlallcla alislralasil1c fully winged in both of the sexes, and can A large, highly active insect, up to 40mm fly in warm weather.
    [Show full text]