River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report Southern Water

29 January 2016

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Southern Water’s information and use in relation to the 2014-2015 River Test Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) project

Atkins Ltd assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 46 pages including the cover.

Document history

Job number: 5141301 Document ref: 5099146 / 1070 / DG / 034 Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 Draft for client review AB, BSP, PMS MJ DJR BSP 26/11/15 Rev 1.1 Revised draft following AB, BSP, PMS MJ DJR BSP 02/12/15 client review Rev 1.2 Revised draft following AB, BSP, PMS MJ DJR BSP 17/12/15 additional internal review Rev 2.0 Restructured draft BSP MJ DJR BSP 28/12/16 following EA January 2016 comments

Client signoff

Client Southern Water

Project River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA)

Document title Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group

Job no. 5141301

Copy no.

Document 5099146 / 1070 / DG / 034 reference

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Table of contents

Chapter Pages 1. Introduction 5 1.1. Water resource planning context 5 1.2. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resource Zones (WRZ) – public water supplies 6 1.3. Environmental designations 7 1.4. Previous investigations 13 1.5. Testwood Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) 2014-2015 16 1.6. Structure of report 17 2. Objective of the 2014-2015 RSA Project 18 2.1. Introduction 18 2.2. Environmental outcomes 19 2.3. Technical Working Groups (TWG) 20 3. Salmon Technical Working Group 22 3.1. Objectives 22 3.2. Summary of technical work undertaken 22 3.3. Outcomes 23 3.4. Recommendations on issues to be taken forward 26 4. Augmentation TWG 28 4.1. Objectives 28 4.2. Summary of technical work undertaken 29 4.3. Outcomes 30 4.4. Advice of the TWG and recommendations on issues to be taken forward 33 5. Options TWG 34 5.1. Objectives 34 5.2. Summary of technical work undertaken 34 5.3. Outcomes 36 5.4. Recommendations on issues to be taken forward 37 6. Summary of recommended way forward 41 7. References in this summary report 43

Appendices 44 Appendix A. List of documentation referred to in main text 45

Tables Table 5-1 Unconstrained options list ...... 38 Table 5-2 Constrained options list ...... 39 Table 5-3 Feasible options list ...... 40 Table 7-1 List of reports referred to in this report ...... 43

Figures Figure 1-1 General location map ...... 9 Figure 1-2 Environmental designations of the Lower Test ...... 10 Figure 1-3 River Test SSSI - Units downstream of M27 ...... 11 Figure 1-4 River Itchen - upstream location map ...... 12 Figure 2-1 2014-2015 RSA Project - schematic of work process ...... 18

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

1. Introduction

This Summary Report brings together the outcomes of work under the Testwood Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) 2014-2015 Project that was undertaken during 2015. The purpose of the project was to consolidate the outputs of various preceding projects and to report to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group on what changes to the Testwood abstraction licence might be required in order to remove and/or resolve any remaining concerns about the long-term sustainability of abstraction from the Lower River Test. The previous projects are discussed in Section 1.4.

This introductory section covers the following:

 Water resource planning context (Section 1.1;  Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resource Zones (WRZ) – public water supplies (Section 1.2);  Environmental Designations (Section 1.3);  Previous Investigations (Section 1.4);  Testwood Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) 2014-2015 Project (Section 1.5; and  Structure of Report Sections 2 to 6 and Appendix (Section 1.6).

Copies of relevant correspondence are included in Appendix A.

1.1. Water resource planning context The work by Southern Water referred to in this Summary Report has largely been undertaken under the following two headings:

 Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) and Drought Plan; and  National Environment Programme (NEP).

The WRMP is a statutory requirement, with the process set out in the Environment Agency (EA) Water Resource Planning Guideline (WRPG). The purpose of the statutory WRMP is to set out how the company plans to ensure that for the next 25 years it will have sufficient resources in place to meet customer demand under a set of very specific water stressed (dry but not drought) conditions. Notwithstanding their title of “Management Plans”, they are not however a statement of how a company plans to regularly manage and operate its water resources. The WRMP is required to relate specifically to very dry year (but not drought) conditions only. The conditions explored in the WRMP therefore bear no relation to water resources in more “normal” year to year operation, whether river abstractions, groundwater sources or reservoirs.

The investment that is required to maintain security of supply under the specified design conditions is set out in the WRMP, that then feeds into the Company’s Business Plan. The selection of options to maintain the supply-demand balance and hence the security of supply to customers has to meet WRPG and Ofwat requirements.

NEP projects are funded through price limits set by Ofwat in its Price Review Final Determination. There were two water resource NEP projects in the Hampshire South WRZ undertaken during AMP5 (2010 to 2015):

 Lower Test NEP (see Section 1.4.2.1); and  Itchen NEP (see Section 1.4.2.2).

The governance of each project was through a Project Steering Group (PSG) which included representation from the EA and Natural England (NE); other interested parties were engaged during the process. The scope of work was defined and agreed with each PSG at the start of the project.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 5

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

1.2. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resource Zones (WRZ) – public water supplies Southern Water’s previous Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP09) was published in October 2009 and covered the period 2010 to 2035. In WRMP09 the Hampshire South Water Resource Zone (WRZ) had sufficient water resources to be able to maintain a positive supply demand balance throughout the 25 year planning period. It also had sufficient available supplies to provide treated water for transfer to the Isle of Wight WRZ. This meant that, subject to the constraints in the transfer of the cross-Solent main, supplies from Hampshire South would have been available for transfer to the Isle of Wight at times when the indigenous resources were unable to meet its local demand. Figure 1.1 shows the general location of the River Test, the River Itchen, the surface water intakes for the Testwood and the Otterbourne Water Supply Works (WSW) and the cross-Solent main.

The implementation of the River Itchen Sustainability Reductions would however trigger a significant reduction in the amount of water Southern Water has available not only for the customers of the Hampshire South WRZ but also for the Isle of Wight WRZ. Notwithstanding the demand management measures such as further leakage reduction and completion of the universal domestic metering policy by March 2015, there would be a significant supply demand balance deficit in both the Hampshire and Isle of Wight WRZs and consequent risks to continued security of supply. In order to maintain supplies to customers, significant investment is required to ensure continued water supply to customers in the Hampshire South and the Isle of Wight WRZs. As set out in the final WRMP no single option that could be planned, constructed and commissioned within a reasonable timescale would have been large enough to provide the supplies needed to replace those removed as a result of the Sustainability Reductions. As illustrated by the NEP, water resource planning and environmental work undertaken during AMP5, all possible options have varying degrees of planning and environmental risk which could delay the timetable for implementation. The schemes included in WRMP09 were derived through a working group with the EA, NE, Portsmouth Water and Ofwat. Following a consultation process and subsequent revisions to Southern Water’s WRMP09, Defra gave its approval for Southern Water to publish the Final WRMP09.

Following publication of the Final WRMP09, an investigation of the Lower River Test (see Section 1.4.2.1) was included in the AMP5 NEP with funding allowed for in Ofwat’s Final Determination. The draft of the Final Report of this investigation was submitted to the EA in July 2012 (Atkins 2012b). There was further correspondence and discussion between Southern Water, EA and NE on conclusions from the investigation with which EA and NE did not agree.

This further discussion on the interpretation of the findings of the Lower Test NEP coincided with the work for the next round of the WRMP process. The draft WRMP14 was put out to consultation in May 2013. As had been the case for WRMP09, the preferred plan of the draft WRMP14 included increasing the capacity of the Testwood WSW up to the existing abstraction licence.

Further analysis and interpretation for the Lower Test NEP to address the concerns raised by EA and NE was undertaken from October 2012 with changes incorporated in the final NEP investigation report that was published in October 2013 (Atkins 2013). In January 2014 (copy of correspondence is included in Appendix A), the EA signed off the NEP investigation report as complete, even though it did not agree with or endorse the conclusions of the report.

The continuing discussions led to a further project – Testwood abstraction licence review (see Section 1.4.3) that was undertaken between November 2013 and May 2014. Following the WRMP consultation process and subsequent revisions to the draft WRMP, which included additional scenarios setting out what the alternative plans would be if the preferred solution could not be implemented and also the findings of the Testwood abstraction licence review, Defra authorised Southern Water to publish this updated plan in September 2014 (copy of correspondence is included in Appendix A).

The Final WRMP14 was published in October 2014 and covers the 25-year planning period from 2015 to 2040. WRMP14 included a basket of options that would have allowed incremental implementation of the River Itchen Sustainability Reductions; the preferred plan included the option to increase the deployable output of the Testwood WSW by increasing the peak treatment capacity of the works up to the daily abstraction licence limit of 136 Ml/d.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 6

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Notwithstanding the publication of the Final WRMP14, EA and NE remain concerned about whether the existing level (let alone abstraction at increased rates up to the authorised quantities) of abstraction from the River Test at Testwood is sustainable. These concerns were the catalyst for the 2014-2015 RSA project which is summarised in this report.

1.3. Environmental designations The River Test SSSI is the prime habitat of concern to the Testwood RSA investigation, however there are other designated areas that border the river. The environmental designations of the River Itchen are also relevant to this RSA investigation. Maps of the environmental designations on the Lower Test and on the upper Itchen and its tributaries are shown in Figures 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.

The following paragraphs summarise the main environmental designations:

 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Section 1.3.1);  Habitats Directive (Section 1.3.2; and  Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Section 1.3.3).

1.3.1. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

1.3.1.1. River Test SSSI The River Test was notified as a SSSI in 1996, with significant areas of semi-natural vegetation in the floodplain included in the designation. Thus, in addition to the river system itself, the SSSI supports some extensive areas of floodplain grassland, fen, reed bed, wet woodland, scrub and areas of open water. The SSSI designation extends throughout its length to the normal tidal limit.

The River Test SSSI covers about 50 km of river channel. The SSSI is broken down into 91 component units of which eight are riverine units. Unit 91 (Romsey to Estuary) is the furthest downstream; Unit 91 is 10.25 km long of which some 1.7 km is located downstream of the intake for the Testwood WSW. The Lower Test Valley SSSI is adjacent to Unit 91 and comprises the area that lies between the Lower Great Test and the Lower Little Test.

1.3.1.2. River Itchen SSSI The River Itchen SSSI covers about 42 km of river channel. The SSSI is broken down into 141 units of which six are riverine. The River Itchen SSSI is of relevance to the River Test RSA because one of the options for maintaining security of supplies in the Hampshire South and IoW WRZs is to use the Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation – see Section 4.

1.3.2. Habitats Directive The floodplain below the normal tidal limit of the River Test has European level protection through the designations of the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site. Figure 1.2 shows the outline of these designations.

As part of its Habitats Directive Review of Consents, the EA’s Appropriate Assessment of Solent SAC and SPA considered the Testwood abstraction at full licence, alone and in combination. In Stage 4, completed in October 2009, the EA confirmed the River Test abstraction licences at their existing licensed quantities, concluding that:

“there is currently no evidence that the current rate of abstraction is having an adverse effect on the designated site. However there is also no evidence to suggest that if the licence were used to its full capacity that this would not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated site. Due to the pressure within this area of the country for additional growth and therefore additional water to meet this demand the increased demand on this particular licence is highly likely. However the Environment Agency does not have sufficient evidence to equate removal of current headroom to a risk of effect from abstraction at rates within the range of current to fully licensed – it is over-

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 7

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

precautionary. This option is considered overly precautionary by the Environment Agency and is not considered appropriate.”

1.3.3. Water Framework Directive (WFD) At the start of the Lower Test NEP Investigation, the South East River Basin Management Plan (2009) was reviewed to establish the status of the water bodies within the study area. There are three WFD water bodies in the environs of the Lower Test which consist of two river water bodies and one transitional water body:

 River Blackwater GB107042016790;  Test (Lower) GB107042016840; and  Southampton Water GB520704202800.

For the Lower River Test, upstream of the confluence of the Lower Test and the River Blackwater, the water body is named as the “Test (Lower)”. The boundary of the River Blackwater water body extends past its confluence of the Lower Test water body to the bend immediately downstream of the bridge to Testwood WSW. This bend marks the start of the transitional water body called “Southampton Water”.

In essence, much of the NEP study reach is contained within the transitional water body of Southampton Water. Of the three water bodies, only Southampton Water is defined as being Heavily Modified and thus has a list of mitigation measures that need to be in place before it can be deemed to be in Good Ecological Potential. Overall, this water body is at Moderate Ecological Potential. Mitigation measures that are noted as not being in place include: i. the need to preserve and where possible enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone: and ii. the need for operational and structural changes to locks, sluices, weirs. Other classification and supporting elements that are less than good are biology (invertebrates at Moderate) and physico- chemistry (dissolved inorganic nitrogen at Moderate). The tidal regime, freshwater flow is classified as Supports Good.The Test (Lower) water body (GB107042016840) is at Poor Status with biological elements of fish and invertebrates classified as Good and High respectively and macrophytes and phytobenthos classified as Moderate and Poor respectively. The water body is classified at Good for physico-chemistry and specific pollutants. Hydrology is classified as does not support Good and morphology as supports Good. The draft 2015 classifications published in October 2015 indicate that the water body is still at Poor Status with phytobenthos being the driving element. iii. For the River Blackwater water body (GB107042016790) the overall status is Good with the two biological elements having a classification being fish, which are at Good Status and invertebrates which are at High Status. Physico-chemical elements are all at High Status and the quantity and dynamics of flow and morphology are both classified as Supports Good.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 8

Andover

.! .! Legend .! !( Main water supply works Alton Selected rivers Cross-Solent main

Candover Stream Candover groundwater d x scheme for river m . n augmentation o

i River Alre t a c o l River Itchen Pipeline l a r e n .! Borehole e River Test Salisbury Winchester G

1 .

1 Water Resource Zones

g Chilerton Stream i F

_ Hampshire South 0 3 0 _

G Isle of Wight D \ S I G \ Petersfield 5 1

0 (! Otterbourne 2 d o o Romsey w t s e T _ Eastleigh 4 6

0 River Blackwater 1 \ s e s s e c o r P _ k r o Fordingbridge Testwood (! W _

0 Totton

6 Horndean 0 1 \ Southampton 5 1

0 0 2.5 5 10 2

n Km a

J ± a e r A n r e t s e Havant

W Fareham

- PROJECT TITLE

6 Ringwood Emsworth 4 Testwood RSA Summary Report 1 9 9 0 5 \ t c TITLE e j o

r Figure 1.1 P \ General location map V N E W

\ Gosport t c Based upon the Ordnance Survey Map by Southern Water

e Portsmouth j

o by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the r P

\ controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. r e

t Crown Copyright WU298530. a W \ SCALE @ A3 DRAWN CHECKED AUTH C

M Lymington Cowes JA/ED BP BP E

B 1:200,000 G \ :

P REF # DATE DATE DATE

:

h Christchurch t Ryde 5099146/DG/030 26/11/15 26/11/15 26/11/15 a P Legend Watercourses Solent & Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site Solent Maritime SAC River Test SSSI Lower Test Valley SSSI

0 125 250 500 d

x Meters

m ± . s g e D

. v n E t s e

T PROJECT TITLE r e

w Testwood RSA Summary Report o L

2 . 1

g TITLE i

F Figure 1.2 _ 1

3 Environmental designations of 0 _ the Lower Test G D \ d

o Based upon the Ordnance Survey Map by Southern Water o

w by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the t s controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. e T

\ Crown Copyright WU298530. p m e t

SCALE @ A3 DRAWN CHECKED AUTH m a

i JA/ED BP BP r i 1:11,000 M \ :

D REF # DATE DATE DATE

: h t 5099146/DG/031 26/11/15 26/11/15 26/11/15 a P Unit 80 d x m . Legend 7 2 M f

o Testwood WSW intake s d

-

Unit 81

I River Test SSSI - Riparian S S

S units (80, 81, 82, 83) t s e Unit 82 T

r Condition e v i R Favourable 3 . 1 g i

F Unfavourable (recovering) _ 2 3 0

_ River Test SSSI - Riverine G D \ unit (91) S I G \

5 Unit 91 Condition 1 Unit 83 0 2 d

o Unfavourable (no change) o w t s e T _ 4 6 0 1 \ s e

s Note: Unit 91 extends 21km upstream s e c of the M27 o r P _ k r o W _ 0 6 0 1 \ 5 1 0 2 n a J a e r A n r e t s e W

- 0 125 250 500

6 Meters 4

1 ± 9 9 0 5 \ t c e j o r P \

V PROJECT TITLE N E

W Testwood RSA Summary Report \ t c e j o r P

\ TITLE r e t a Figure 1.3 W \ River Test SSSI - Units downstream of M27 C M E B

G Based upon the Ordnance Survey Map by Southern Water \ t c by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the e j controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. o r p Crown Copyright WU298530. \ m o c

. SCALE @ A3 DRAWN CHECKED AUTH s n i JA/ED BP BP k t 1:11,000 a s w \

\ REF # DATE DATE DATE

: h t 5099146/DG/032 19/11/15 19/11/15 19/11/15 a P Legend Environmental designations River Itchen SAC d x m . s

g River Itchen SSSI e D

. v n Alresford Pond SSSI E n e h c t

I Existing groundwater r e v i scheme for river R

4 . 1

augmentation g i F _

3 Delivery pipeline 3 0 _ G D

\ /" Existing major outfall S I G \ 5

1 Candover Scheme 0 2 d o o Indicative pipeline route w t s /" e T _ 4 6 0 1 \ s e s s e c o r P _ k r o W _ 0 6 0 1 \ 5 1

0 0 0.5 1 2 2

n Km a

J ± a e r A n r e t s e W

- PROJECT TITLE

6 4 Testwood RSA Summary Report 1 9 9 0 5 \ t c TITLE e j o

r Figure 1.4 P \ River Itchen SSSI V

N Environmental Designatons E W \ t c Based upon the Ordnance Survey Map by Southern Water e j

o by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the r P

\ controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. r e

t Crown Copyright WU298530. a W \ SCALE @ A3 DRAWN CHECKED AUTH C

M ED BP BP E

B 1:50,000 G \ :

P REF # DATE DATE DATE

: h t 5099146/DG/033 27/11/15 27/11/15 27/11/15 a P River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

1.4. Previous investigations In March 2006, the Test & Itchen Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) resource assessment classified the Testwood gauging station and the Test Total assessment points as being “over- abstracted” at low flows. The CAMS identified an action to investigate the impact of abstraction on the Lower Test.

The work of the three Technical Working Groups (TWG) described in this summary report therefore has been able to draw on the information and data collected from a number of previous investigations undertaken by the EA and by Southern Water in order to deliver the CAMS action. Where appropriate and possible, previous data sets have been updated and analysis repeated, and/or new methods of analysis undertaken.

The TWGs have drawn on the following main studies listed in chronological order:

 Environment Agency – Lower Test Project 2008 to 2011 (see Section 1.4.1);  Southern Water – AMP5 National Environment Programme (NEP) investigations 2011 to 2013 (see Section 1.4.2);  Southern Water – Testwood abstraction licence review 2013 to 2014 (see Section 1.4.3); and  Southern Water – Water Resource Management Plan 2014 (WRMP14) and supporting documentation 2011 to 2014 (see Section 1.4.4).

A full list of the reports referred to in this Summary Report is given in Section 7; the full reports of each of the TWGs includes lists of scientific and technical references pertinent to those reports.

1.4.1. Environment Agency – Lower Test Project. The Lower Test Project, undertaken by the EA in consultation with Southern Water, was initiated in December 2008. The following reports were the main deliverables from the Lower Test Project:

 Lower Test Project Phase 1 Flow Diversion Scoping Report. Environment Agency, 2009 (EA, 2009). This report collated data and information relating to three possible flow diversion schemes in the area which have been discussed for some time by the Environment Agency. The three schemes are the Broadlands Fish Farm Carrier, Great/little Test Split (Coleridge Award) and Nursling Fish Farm Carrier;  Lower Test Project Phase 1 Testwood Public Water Supply Abstraction Impact Investigation – Statement of Issues & Assessment Version 2.0. Environment Agency 25 March 2010 (EA, 2010); and  Lower Test Project Phase 1 Baseline Data Report. Version 2.1, Environment Agency 18 February 2011 (EA, 2011). This report collated a significant amount of relevant existing data and information relating to the Lower River Test.

1.4.2. Southern Water AMP5 National Environment Programme (NEP) investigations The technical aspects of each NEP project were successfully delivered, however each project raised supplementary queries with more of an operational and regulatory focus. The two projects were:

 Lower Test NEP Investigations (Atkins, 2012a; Atkins, 2012b; and Atkins, 2013) (see Section 1.4.2.1); and  River Itchen NEP project (Atkins, 2012b) (see Section 1.4.2.2).

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 13

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

1.4.2.1. Lower Test NEP The Southern Water AMP5 Lower Test NEP project built upon the findings of the Appropriate Assessment and other work by the EA. The impacts from operating the source at full licence were assessed although it was recognised that in practice however the Testwood WSW might need to operation at full licence for some days during the design event, the annual volume would be much lower than the authorised annual total.

Since the conclusion of the Lower Test NEP project (Final Report: Atkins, 2013) during AMP5, EA and NE have again raised issues relating to abstraction and river management impacts on the Lower Test which could influence the scope of changes to the existing abstraction licence and hence deployable output (see copy of letter from EA to Southern Water dated 9th January 2014 included in Appendix A). This led to further work requested by the EA to evaluate the environmentally acceptable level of abstraction from the Lower Test (see Section 1.4.3). Since completion of that work and its inclusion in the final WRMP14 (Southern Water, October 2014) Southern Water and EA have committed to working together to develop a detailed scope of joint work so that these issues can be properly addressed. This commitment to work together led to the Testwood Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) 2014-2015 project (Section 1.5).

WWF’s discussion paper issued in March 2015 stated that it did not agree with the conclusion of the report; that comment related to the NEP report.

Until such time as all the outstanding issues have been addressed and resolved, the status of the Testwood scheme as the major component of measures to deliver the River Itchen Sustainability Reductions is uncertain, notwithstanding its inclusion within the Final WRMP14.

1.4.2.2. Itchen NEP The EA’s Itchen groundwater schemes (Alre and Candover) have been investigated for their usefulness or otherwise in the management of deficits in the supply demand balance for the Hampshire South WRZ. These deficits would result from implementation of Habitats Directive Sustainability Reductions on Southern Water’s Lower Itchen abstraction licences.

The following criteria were investigated to assess the suitability of the schemes as possible water resource schemes to support flows in the River Itchen and hence support abstraction at Otterbourne:

 To confirm (or otherwise), whether the augmentation schemes can deliver the licensed quantities;  To confirm the net gain in the flow of the River Itchen at Allbrook & Highbridge gauging stations for a prolonged period of operation of the augmentation schemes during low-flow periods;  To investigate constraints in the deployable output of each augmentation scheme and to identify whether these could be removed by asset maintenance and/or replacement; and  To assess the condition of the mechanical and electrical (M&E) assets and what will be required to bring them up to the operational reliability and flexibility required of strategic augmentation boreholes used to maintain public water supplies.

The Itchen NEP project concluded that the abstraction licence changes set out in the Habitats Directive Stage 4 Review of Consents Site Action Plan (October 2007) to address concerns over the white clawed crayfish population would restrict the operation of the Itchen augmentation schemes for water resource purposes. As currently configured the schemes cannot be reliably utilised to support water resources supply in the Hampshire South WRZ. The construction of a new pipeline to move the point of discharge further downstream, thus avoiding the reaches where there would be a risk to the crayfish population, would remove this constraint. For the Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation to be operated as a water resource scheme further work would be required to agree appropriate regulatory and operational conditions; such considerations were beyond the scope of the AMP5 Itchen NEP project.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 14

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

1.4.3. Southern Water Testwood abstraction licence review Additional work as specified by the EA in a scoping document issued to Southern Water in November 2013 was undertaken between November 2013 and February 2014. The EA summarised the objectives of the work as follows:

 Fill the evidence gaps defined by NE and the EA;  Assess potential licence scenarios against the described environmental outcomes; and  Consider options to determine a sustainable abstraction regime at Testwood.

A number of Technical Notes were written and circulated to the Project Steering Group, and then included in the draft report circulated to EA at the beginning of February 2014 (Atkins, 2014a). The report and its findings were discussed with EA on 12th February; this meeting was followed up by written comments on 28th February 2014. Revisions to the report were made and an updated version circulated to EA on 19th March 2014 (Atkins, 2014b).

Meanwhile Southern Water had retained Cascade Consulting to undertake an independent external Peer Review of the work with a particular focus on “adherence to the agreed Environment Agency and Natural England scope of work for the assessment”. Following the Peer Review, further revisions to the report were made to the March 2014 revision (Atkins, 2014b) with the final report issued in June 2014 (Atkins, 2014c).

The final report concluded:

“The extensive “local investigations of flow impacts and solutions based on local conditions” undertaken by both the EA and Southern Water as part of the NEP investigation tend to suggest that it is only when compliance with such “classifications and universal standards” is assessed that the proposed abstraction at Testwood appears to constitute a risk to the local habitat and ecology. The local evidence based on local conditions seems to suggest the contrary. Thus, while it makes sense to re-structure the current licence at Testwood to more closely reflect future demands, any substantive changes to the river habitat will require a range of other solutions to be implemented.”

The external Peer Review (included as Appendix J of the Testwood Licence Review Report: Atkins, 2014c) concluded:

“The report and accompanying appendices provide a clear and logical presentation of the evidence, analysis and conclusions. The report is comprehensive and benefits from a robust set of underpinning models and analyses which are well described in the accompanying appendices or in the preceding Lower River Test NEP Investigation Report.

The report has covered all of the key elements of the Scope of Work agreed with the Environment Agency and Natural England. Based on the evidence presented in the report, appendices or NEP Investigation Report, the key conclusions reached as to the effects of abstraction on the river environment and water supply reliability are considered robust.

The conclusions should be used with confidence as the basis for further dialogue with the regulatory bodies and interested stakeholders.”

The conclusions of the licence review report and the preceding NEP report were not universally agreed with by all stakeholders. Regarding the final Lower Test NEP report (Atkins, Oct 2013), the EA signed off the investigation report as complete but in its letter dated 9th January 2014 stated that it did “…not agree with or endorse the conclusions…”. Comments on the draft licence review report were raised by the Environment Agency at a meeting on 12th February 2014 but no formal written response was received.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 15

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

1.4.4. Southern Water Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP09, WRMP14) Work for WRMP14 considered an unconstrained list of demand-side and supply-side options to maintain security of supply to its customers in Hampshire South and the Isle of Wight in the light of the River Itchen Sustainability Reductions and other possible changes to abstraction licences advised by EA. The agreed Options Appraisal process led to a constrained list of feasible options.

In response to Southern Water’s pre-consultation prior to preparation of the draft WRMP, EA wrote in its formal response letter dated 21st December 2012:

“It is not appropriate to include a potential reduction of 40Ml/d to the Testwood Source as a ‘likely’ sustainability reduction in the draft plan. The baseline deployable output for Testwood should remain as 105Ml/d in the draft WRMP unless you have evidence to reassess the deployment output for this source.”

Southern Water’s draft WRMP14 was sent out for consultation in March 2013. The draft WRMP14 set out a programme of supply and demand management options that would allow it to continue to meet its statutory obligations to deliver a safe and secure water supply to its customers following full implementation of the Itchen Sustainability Reductions. Following the consultation responses, Southern Water prepared its Statement of Response and produced a revised draft WRMP14 in October 2013. Work undertaken for the Testwood Abstraction Licence Review (Section 1.4.3) informed changes to the final WRMP14. Defra advised Southern Water of its approval to publish the final WRMP14 in September 2014.

Southern Water’s June 2014 revised Business Plan, consistent with the final WRMP14 (published in October 2014), included the Testwood Scheme as an essential part of its preferred water resources strategy to allow the Sustainability Reduction on the River Itchen to be implemented in full.

The Testwood Scheme comprises:

 Refurbishment and increase in the peak capacity of the Testwood WSW up to the capacity of the existing abstraction licence; and  Construction of a new treated water pipeline from the Testwood WSW to the Otterbourne WSW.

Under existing abstraction licence conditions, the Testwood Scheme is the most feasible option with the lowest impact on customer bills.

1.5. Testwood Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) 2014-2015 Whilst EA was able to sign off the Lower Test NEP investigation report (correspondence dated 9th January 2014 on the final NEP Report (Atkins, October 2013) is included in Appendix A), EA, NE and other stakeholders still had residual concerns about the sustainability of the existing Testwood abstraction licence. This triggered further meetings and discussion between Southern Water and EA. In order to progress with the resolution of the continuing differences of opinion on the sustainability of abstraction for the Testwood WSW, Southern Water agreed with the EA and NE to establish and chair a multi-stakeholder Steering Group to address, and where possible to resolve new and remaining uncertainties (Southern Water letter to EA dated 19th March 2014 is included in Appendix A).

EA advised that the Lower Test RSA project would be added to the list of projects to be addressed during AMP6. Given the importance of the Testwood Scheme for timely implementation of the River Itchen Sustainability Reductions, the Lower Test RSA project was to be fast-tracked for completion during the 1st year of AMP6; the objectives of the RSA investigation are set out in Section 0.

The role of the Steering Group was to consider whether any changes to Testwood abstraction licence would be required and if so, whether changes to the options identified in the WRMP14 preferred plan might be required.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 16

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

The RSA investigation had the opportunity to build on the extensive body of work already undertaken by Southern Water in AMP5, which itself built on the EA Lower Test project (see Section 1.4.1).

As noted in Section 2.3, four TWGs were set up in order to compile the evidence-base from previous investigations, to consider the concerns raised by EA, NE, WWF and others, and to bring together the outcomes to inform Steering Group decisions. Three of the four TWGs have completed their work and have submitted comprehensive reports to the Steering Group; the work of these TWGs and their findings are summarised later in this report.

The intention was that based on its considerations of the findings of these four TWGs, the Steering Group should by the end of December 2015 report back to Southern Water and the EA that it has either: i. come to an acceptable solution which will meet Southern Water’s licence modifications whilst ensuring Southern Water meets its statutory obligations, or ii. has been unable to reach an acceptable solution which will meet Southern Water’s licence modifications whilst ensuring Southern Water meets its statutory obligations.

The EA wrote to Southern Water on 30th September 2015 to state its current position on the RSA process and emerging outcomes. The letter set out a suggested way forward, which meant that the Steering Group decided that work on the Testwood RSA 2014-2015 should stop. The Options Appraisal steps of the process outlined in the schematic above were therefore not completed in full.

1.6. Structure of report The following sections of this report cover the following:

Section 2 Objectives of the 2014-2015 RSA project; Section 3 Work of and findings from the Salmon TWG; Section 4 Work of and findings from the Augmentation TWG; Section 5 Work of and findings from the Options TWG; Section 6 Recommendations for issues to take forward; and Section 7 References

This report draws heavily on the separate reports of each of the three TWGs that have been established to date; where appropriate, text has been copied directly from those reports, and therefore reflects the different style of each of the main reports.

The full reports and supporting Appendices from each of the three TWGs are available as separate documents.

Appendix A of this RSA summary report contains copies of relevant correspondence between Southern Water and EA that are referred to in this report.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 17

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

2. Objective of the 2014-2015 RSA Project

2.1. Introduction Following the submission to Defra in May 2014 of Southern Water’s “Further information in support of the Statement of Response” to the draft of the Final Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP14), the EA asked Southern Water to continue its investigation into the abstraction on the River Test in the context of the RSA programme. Abstraction for the Testwood Water Supply Works (WSW) from the Lower River Test had already been subject of an AMP5 NEP (see Section 1.4.2.1). The AMP5 NEP investigation was undertaken by Atkins on behalf of Southern Water. The new RSA investigation was to build on the AMP5 NEP study and various others studies (see Section 1.5).

Discussion between Southern Water and the EA identified the key stages of the process to be followed for the work as set out in the schematic of Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 2014-2015 RSA Project - schematic of work process

What is the individual and cumulative contribution of What is the full suite of What constitutes a SWS abstraction and flow identified barriers to the sustainable population management by others to achievement of this of Salmon on the Test? these barriers? population? What are current i.e. importance of flow, Including upstream and numbers and therefore external factors downstream structures; the what’s the gap? operations of structures What standards are relevant What constitutes a along the river; and the and should be applied: e.g significant impact on impact channel diversions CSMG flow targets Environmental Outcomes Environmental that population? have upon fish. Options Appraisal

Undertake a cost effective scheme selection process as defined in the WRMP Identify baskets of measures that would mitigate Identify possible changes to the barriers to a sustainable population and their abstraction licence to help identify the appropriate set of schemes. potential to be effective; highlighting contribution that is within SWS ability to deliver and where Feed changes into WRMP19 Quantify Impact on security of public water options are the responsibility of other riparian and Prepare applications for supply. other parties. necessary consents / licences Consider alternative environmental Identify a discrete number of favoured solutions outcome if necessary.

Achieve consensus with interested parties.

Following the publication of the Environmental Outcomes by the EA (see Section 2.2), the following four work streams were identified in order to deliver this process; i. A review of the evidence of causal factors that influence and trigger salmon migration, with the objective of establishing whether the existing migration models could be improved; ii. A review of the possible operation of the Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation for water resource purposes; iii. A review of existing options to resolve supply demand deficits and develop new options such as water re- use and instream solutions; and iv. A review of the existing abstraction licences (with a view to go through the phased changes to the Itchen licences as set out in Southern Water’s WRMP) and potential operating agreements.

Four Technical Working Groups (TWG) were set up under the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group to deliver these four work streams. The TWGs were tasked with reporting to the Steering

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 18

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Group on the need for and hence the scope of a RSA project on the River Test that had not been identified for the 2014 Water Resource Management Plan or the 2014 Business Plan. The purpose was therefore to inform the deliberations of the Steering Group, drawing on the existing evidence base as well as undertaking some new analysis and interpretation.

The work of the TWGs did not include any new field work or surveys, although the opportunity was taken to update where possible datasets used for previous studies. This summary report brings together the outcomes of the work of first three of the four TWGs whose work was undertaken between April and September 2015.

The EA wrote to Southern Water on 30th September 2015 to state its current position on the RSA process and emerging outcomes. The letter set out a suggested way forward, which meant that the Steering Group decided that work on the Testwood RSA 2014-2015 should stop. The Options Appraisal steps of the process outlined in the schematic above were therefore not completed in full.

2.2. Environmental outcomes At the start of the Southern Water AMP5 Lower Test NEP project, a set of environmental outcomes was agreed with the Project Steering Group (note that the Table references given below are taken from the final NEP Report (Atkins, 2013)):

 Table 1.2.1 - Scope of the fisheries and ecological assessment for the Lower Test NEP: and  Table 8.2 - Summary of the findings of the Lower Test NEP Investigation upon ecological aspects of the River.

The environmental outcomes listed in Table 8.2 of the final Report (Atkins, 2013) were: i. A flow regime in the lower River Test that maintains or improves passage for migrating salmon; ii. The effective screening of all abstraction intakes to prevent fish being drawn in and trapped at any stage of their life cycle; and iii. The maintenance of a water temperature profile in the lower River Test which is not raised as a result of increased abstraction and is as resilient as possible to climate change.

Table 8.2 also included the following summary of the outcome of the NEP investigation as:

Environmental Objective 1. Current/Historical levels of abstraction – On the basis of the wide range of assessments described above, it is possible to conclude with a high degree of confidence that the risks posed by current levels of abstraction to this Environmental Objective are low. Full licensed abstraction – There is a high degree of confidence that the risks to Environmental Objective 1 associated with abstracting the full licence are low.

Environmental Objective 3: Current/Historical and Full licensed abstraction – the overall conclusion of this study is that there is a high degree of confidence that the risk posed by the Testwood abstraction (current levels and full licensed quantities) to the temperature regime of the Lower Test, and thus the aims of Environmental Objective 3, is low.

The MRF flow condition is considered to pose a low risk to the thermal regime of the Lower Test particularly given that such low flows are highly unlikely to be experienced in warm summer conditions more than once in 100 years.

The final Lower Test NEP was published in October 2013 (Atkins, Oct 2013). As already noted, the EA had stated that it did “…not agree with or endorse the conclusions…”. Further work was requested by the EA in November 2013 to evaluate the environmentally acceptable level of abstraction from the Lower Test. The outcome of work to address these residual concerns was set out in the draft report “The Evaluation of the Environmentally Acceptable Level of Abstraction from the Lower River” Test issued to the EA for comment in February 2014 (Atkins, 2014a); a revised version was issued to EA in March 2014 (Atkins 2014b). The final report, that incorporated revisions in response to EA comments on the draft report and issues raised in the

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 19

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report independent external Peer Review, was issued in June 2014 (Atkins, 2014c) (see Section 1.4.3). The findings of the additional work were used to inform the final WRMP14 that was published in October 2014.

In its letter to Southern Water dated 9th March 2015 entitled ‘Environmental Outcomes – Testwood Licence’ The EA set out its thoughts on the need for the RSA to include an investigation of potential Hands off Flow conditions. They had also submitted an earlier draft document for discussion in January 2015, entitled ‘PROPOSED DRAFT Environmental Outcomes for the RSA process for Southern Water’s Testwood licence’.

The EA draft document of January 2015 set out a table of proposed environmental outcomes and associated criteria. The January draft document states:

“We have already found that there is no hard scientific evidence on which to set numeric Environmental Outcomes for the Lower Test – particularly in relation to testing abstraction and flow scenarios which have never been seen or measured before in the Lower Test system. The data that we do have helps us to understand current pressures on the system and allows us to suggest more descriptive Environmental Outcomes. As a result of considering these more descriptive Environmental Outcomes, conditions to protect the environment on any revised licence at Testwood will be based on the professional judgement of Environment Agency technical staff.”

The 9th March 2015 letter however attempts to set numerical Environmental Outcomes by setting out derived Hands off Flow conditions for the Testwood abstraction licence:

“Having considered a variety of option for setting that flow [the HoF condition], we have decided that an appropriate level of protection is to set a seasonally varying flow condition which applies all year but at its most precautionary would specify that:

 Abstraction must not cause flows in the Great Test to fall below 265Ml/d at Testwood Bridge downstream of the confluence between the River Blackwater and River Test between 1st May and 30th September;

 Total flows in the River Test system should not drop below 410Ml/d where the river flows into Southampton Water between 1st May and 30th September.”

Whilst the EA’s 9th March 2015 letter sets out a proposal for a seasonally varying flow condition to limit the Testwood abstraction, it does not explicitly set out the environmental objectives that explain why this flow condition may be required – i.e. what environmental outcome it is explicitly seeking to achieve. The Hands off Flow conditions, rather than being an environmental outcome, are probably better classified as a proposed mitigation measure, for an outcome - which is not yet clearly defined.

2.3. Technical Working Groups (TWG) Each of the TWGs The Steering Group (see Section 1.5) was set up to provide specific technical inputs to the Steering Group. The TWGs did not have any executive role. Each TWG comprised a Chair, representatives from Southern Water, EA, NE WWF and other stakeholders. The work of the TWGs was also be supported by the inputs for Southern Water undertaken by Atkins and/or other external consultants who were retained by Atkins on behalf of and funded by Southern Water. Note that the legal agreements TWG was not set up.

The TWG were set up to consider the following key work streams were:

 Salmon TWG;  Options TWG;  Augmentation TWG; and  Legal agreements and operational frameworks TWG.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 20

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Each of the first three Technical Working Groups was set up to provide specific technical inputs to the over- arching Steering Group by the end of September 2015. The Scope of Works for each TWG was described and agreed at the initial start-up meeting for each TWG separately.

The Augmentation TWG is related to the Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation, which is not directly linked to the RSA investigation, but is a key scheme within the overall Western Area strategy to allow full implementation of the Itchen Sustainability Reductions at the earliest date. A number of stakeholders have objections to and concerns about the Candover Scheme (which comprises the existing groundwater scheme for river augmentation plus a new delivery pipeline), and hence a TWG was formed to work through the concerns of these stakeholders. Without the Candover Scheme and alternative scheme would need to be developed, which is likely to delay the full implementation of the Itchen Sustainability Reductions.

The Legal agreements and operational frameworks TWG has not yet been formed; its work is expected to start January 2016.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 21

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

3. Salmon Technical Working Group

This Section is based on the summary provided in the Salmon Technical Working Group (STWG) Report issued to the Steering Group in October 2015. The main body of that report was drafted by Dr Colin Fenn, the Chair of the STWG.

The STWG comprised the following participants:

 WWF‐UK Dr Colin Fenn (Chair);  Independent Fisheries Scientist Dr Nigel Milner;  Independent expert John Lawson;  Atkins Phil Sutherland;  Environment Agency Dr Adrian Fewings, Tim Sykes;  Salmon & Trout Association Dr Janina Gray, Paul Knight;  Southern Water Nigel Hepworth;  Testwood Fishery Howard Taylor, Mike Johnson; and  Test & Itchen Association Neil Freeman

The STWG Report forms part of the wider RSA documentation and reference should be made to the report and its associated supporting documents (provided as appendices to the STWG Report) if further information and a more detailed understanding of the technical issues is required.

An “opening statement” was provided by the STWG at the beginning of its report and it is appropriate to re- produce it below as follows:

This report presents the findings to date of the work of the Salmon Working Group. These should not be taken to be full and final. Conclusions drawn and decisions taken on the basis of the information provided herein should be made with due caution, and should take account of the caveats and qualifications made, and of the risks entailed.

3.1. Objectives The STWG was established by the Steering Group in April 2015 with a suggested list of tasks that evolved into a Terms of Reference (ToR) (this is included as Appendix B1 of the STWG Report).

In brief, the defined scope and purpose of the STWG was to:

 collate, analyse and consider such evidence as is available and readily obtainable on the influence of abstraction on salmon migration in the Lower River Test; and  in light of that work, advise the SG on the effectiveness of measures that may be taken to protect and (if possible) enhance the migration of salmon in the Lower Test, with particular regard to the management of flows in and abstraction from the Lower Test, and to such other factors as may support the migration of salmon in the Lower Test.

3.2. Summary of technical work undertaken The STWG focused its attention on the central issue (and, inevitably, on the confounding factors around that issue, and on the repercussions of findings on it):

To what extent does flow and, more specifically, the reduction in flow by abstraction – materially influence the migration of salmon in the Lower River Test?

The STWG met on five occasions, on 5 May, 4 June, 1 July, 24 August and 28 September 2015, to scope work and actions, and to review and discuss progress and findings.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 22

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Substantive work tasked to individual members of the Group was undertaken between meetings, and was presented for review at subsequent meetings. The following work packages were undertaken:

A. Review and appraisal of the EA’s ‘Qmig’ approach, as a basis for informing the design of an updated abstraction licence for the Great Test at Testwood; B. Collation and analysis of salmon catch data from the Testwood, Nursling and Broadlands fisheries, to extend and complement the count data available from the fish counters on the Great Test and Little Test between Testwood and Broadlands; C. Review and development of the Pisces salmon migration model, to enable it to be used to assess the migration impacts of different abstraction licensing scenarios; D. Examination of relationships between salmon migration and candidate causal variables, individually and in combination, for purposes of understanding controls on migration for use in Pisces migration modelling and in abstraction control design; E. Use of the Pisces salmon migration model to assess the nature and the strength of flow control on salmon migration, and the migration impacts of different abstraction licensing scenarios; and F. Survey of members’ positions and views on a range of propositions for the management of abstraction and related matters, to define the degree of convergence/divergence thereon.

Outputs from these work packages are described in full in the STWG Report and Appendices and are summarised below.

3.3. Outcomes There is overall consensus from SWG members, on the basis of work done by the STWG (and, inevitably, from members’ prior knowledge) that flow facilitates salmon migration positively, but in a highly variable manner, and differentially from one year to another, and from one part of the salmon migration season to another, according to the influence of other factors. These include behavioural, hydrological and hydraulic factors, as follows, all of which are highly dynamic (time‐fluctuating) and interactive (cross‐correlated). A further explanation of these key factors is provided below:

 Salmon behaviour factors – the timing and the number of fish arriving from the sea; the age composition of that arrival population; the preferential propensity of individuals and groups of fish to migrate upstream, between the date of their arrival to the late autumn drive to migrate upstream; the availability of refuges compared to the number of fish seeking them;  Hydrological factors– flow discharge (Q, in m3/s or Ml/d); rainfall (R, in mm); water temperature (T in oC); suspended sediment concentration (C, in mg/l; or ppm); dissolved oxygen concentration (DO, in %), electrical conductivity (EC, in μS/cm) and other chemical parameters, including pollutants as well as those that define the ionic signature of the Test; and as appropriate, by reference to changes, from one day to the next, and not just by reference to absolute magnitude; and  Hydraulic factors ‐ flow width (w, in m); flow velocity (v, in m/s); flow depth (d, in m), which together constitute the hydraulic geometry of a cross section of the flow, the elements of which vary within and between reaches of a river; effects on hydraulic and geomorphological w, d, v, and thence on migration, of hydraulic structures such as weirs, culverts, sluices and hatches.

The evidence base on all of these factors comes from such historical records as are available, and is accordingly subject to limitations arising from the length, the availability, the accuracy and the consistency of the measurement systems in place, now and previously.

The range and the reliability of the count data for both the Great Test and the Little Test have been improved in this recent work by co‐analysis of rod catch data. There is, though, a need for monitoring and consideration of fish movements under stock levels and composition as they now are, as distinct from those of even the recent past, given the decline in the abundance and the change in composition of salmon stocks entering the Test from the sea, and the effects of that on river entry and in‐river migration behaviour and patterns. Modern, telemetry‐enabled monitoring systems need to be installed to enable more reliable understanding and management of salmon migration into and up the River Test. The evidence to hand at this time needs to be set in that context, and used to best effect but with due caution.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 23

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

3.3.1. Evidence and Analysis

3.3.1.1. Data analysis, residual variation and predictive capability of regression-based models The causal model analysis undertaken by TSWG members to date, using the data available, has revealed that migration count and probability values are linked to flow, to rainfall, to tidal influence, and to water temperature; but that the explanation of variation in migration probability and numbers by flow alone, by flow and rainfall and other environmental variables leaves more of the variation in migration unexplained than explained, when daily data are used, even in those parts of the migration season when migration is most responsive to flow change and rainfall stimuli.

This is not to say that there is no relationship between migration and flow (and abstraction‐reduced flow). Nor is it to say that relationships between migration and flow (and other variables) cannot be defined and used. But the explanatory and predictive power of those (and other) relationships depends on the proportion of the observed variation in migration (count or probability) the model can account for. A relationship can be real and identifiable but of limited explanatory and predictive value, at one and the same time. The considerable body of data analysis undertaken by members of the SWG indicates that the regression-based models examined to date have limited explanatory and predictive ‘skill’. That limitation may be overcome by recognising and using so‐far unidentified patterns in the residuals; or, more likely, it might better be tackled by examining the potential of approaches that better match the intrinsic characteristics of the data under analysis. Time series techniques are an avenue to explore, given the time dependency of the data examined, as are queuing models which are well suited to handle situations where characterising variable arrival and transfer distributions is a critical part of the problem.

So far, we can say that regression‐based modelling of daily salmon migration data indicates that some relationship between migration and flow can be identified, but that variability in daily salmon migration counts and probabilities remains as much (or more) unexplained as explained by variations in flow and other environmental variables; and that there is considerable variation in migration‐flow patterns and relationships from one part of the migration season to another, and from one year to another. The evidence to date is that the migration – and the non‐migration ‐ of salmon on a daily timescale is a difficult thing to predict well, and that predictions thereof cannot be claimed to be strong in regard to variance explanation. This may be a defining characteristic of the flow‐migration relationship in slow‐response, baseflow‐driven chalk streams, in contrast to that of flashy, spate rivers (the River Lune in North West England was used as a comparator in this regard).

Aggregating daily migration data into 3‐day, 7‐day and 30‐day blocks reduces the natural variance in the daily data (and by flow bands, even more so), and makes it easier to believe that the relationship between the lumped migration data and the similarly aggregated flow and rainfall data used to model them is good, or strong. The scatter of (methodologically reduced) residuals around the fitted model may look tight, and the R2 might (or might not) be higher than the 50% or so it might reach when daily data are used, but the compromise of being able to see the wood from the trees is the sacrifice of information in the daily data which show profound variability.

The available evidence shows that the control exerted by flow (and by baseflow, throughout and in dry periods) on the number of salmon moving upstream on a given day of the migration season cannot currently be well predicted by flow, or by flow and rainfall and other environmental variables, in any year, be it average, dry or drought. At best, such predictions come with a significant degree of uncertainty (or low confidence in the reliability of the prediction). That said, a flow support measure can also (or otherwise) be the means to maintain a ‘survival flow’ that affords protection to fish that remain in the lower reaches of the river, so a flow that may not always deliver migration support might be considered to have value as a survival support measure, irrespective.

That daily migration is highly variable and hard to ‘explain’, in a causal modelling sense, and that lumped period (and/or flow band) modelling entails compromises does not mean that we do not have a reasonable basis upon which we may attempt to model migration‐flow relationships, and to manage flow, via abstraction controls, to best effect for salmon migration and protection. It does, though, mean that we must be aware of the uncertainties we face when we do so, and exercise due caution in the conclusions we reach and the

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 24

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report decisions we take. This is the context in which the Pisces migration model was put to use, to determine the possible impacts on migration of different abstraction management scenarios. Pisces is a bespoke model developed for the Great Test as part of the NEP Investigation completed in July 2012. Although very useful for assisting the understanding of potential environmental influences on migration at a qualitative level, the NEP work concluded that it was not sufficiently robust to use for meaningful quantitative assessment of abstraction related impacts.

3.3.1.2. Use of the Pisces Model To date, the Pisces migration model has been set‐up, calibrated and used for simulating migration (under a range of abstraction scenarios) in the Great Test, alone. The quite different character of flow and migration patterns in the Little Test to those in the Great Test mean that we cannot assume that what holds for the Great Test must also hold for the Little Test; separate modelling of the Little Test situation is called for. What we can say to date relates to the Great Test only. The underlying model used for scenario testing of abstraction–migration outcomes for the Great Test determines migration probabilities as a function of flow, rainfall (using a 2 day rolling mean value) and a seasonal ‘Willingness to Migrate’ (WtM) profile that has been tuned to the Great Test using local information. The Pisces model assigns random characteristics to the migration of individual fish, too, to reflect the uncertainties of the arrival and transfer process in reality, which can result in ‘quirks’ in the results of one run compared to another, and creates a ‘random effect’ bandwidth of around ±5% in its results. It is important to note that the Pisces model does not include any allowance for loss of fish after arrival (from disease, pollution, predation, stress and other such risks). This is an important limitation of the model, in regard to its inability to represent the effects of any delay in migration on mortality or well‐being effects. This limitation needs to be held in mind in interpreting the results of Pisces model simulations, and in taking decisions based on those results.

The findings from the Pisces migration modelling need to be analysed in respect of (a) the differences in the migration numbers of the various abstraction scenarios that have been simulated, over the season as a whole and in the early, mid and late phases of it; (b) the reliability of those estimates; (c) the nature and the significance of the indicated impacts on migration numbers and timing (examining numbers as a whole, and by runs and composition). The timing element is important in regard to the possibility of delays in migration, and the consequent implications for fish mortality (or survivability) and well‐being.

Conclusions and decisions based on the model findings must take account of the uncertainties around them. These include the fact that the best calibration of the model still leaves around a half of the variation in daily migration probability unexplained, across the year as a whole, and considerably more than that in the early summer period, when the model fit is at its worst. The absence of incorporation in the migration model of any loss or impact factor for fish delayed in transit upstream is also a serious issue. The model assumes, accordingly, that all of the fish that are delayed in transit upstream remain ‘fit and well’ and available to migrate thereafter, with no account being taken of the potential losses from predation, disease, pollution, stress and other risks, under pressure from the higher water temperatures, the higher angling intensity and other objective dangers that are likely to be elevated by remaining downstream for longer. So the survivability and well‐being consequences of delay need to feature large in future assessments of abstraction impacts, and of measures to alleviate adverse impacts.

Three key conclusions and response prescriptions emerge from the findings to date, with due consideration of the degree to which the observations can be trusted.

i. First, some of the salmon that arrive in the early summer may be delayed in their upstream migration by flow reduction due to abstraction, so there is a need to consider the degree and the impacts of that delay on salmon well‐being and (if appropriate) the measures and/or mitigations needed to address the adverse effects of that delay; ii. The second conclusion from the evidence produced to date is that abstraction (as modelled, and without a loss due to delay component in the model) does not reduce the total number of salmon moving upstream over the season as a whole, even in droughts. Were that to be so, with mortality and well‐being effects taken into account in a plausible way, no measures or mitigations above and beyond those needed to address the effects of delay may be needed (unless higher abstraction rates were contemplated). Were a proper consideration of delay‐related losses to show that delay reduces the number of migrants in total, above and beyond its impact on early movement benefits), the need

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 25

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

for appropriate abstraction control design and other measures to avoid/reduce/mitigate the impacts of delay and consequent mortality problems would be needed; and iii. The third signal from the evidence is that the proposed increase in abstraction will not increase the delay in migration, compared to the current abstraction regime, whether or not a 265 Ml/d HoF is applied, so the need for abstraction controls appears (primarily, if not solely) to be limited to those needed to address early season delay issues. Again, though, any prolonged reduction in flows during droughts (and in multi‐season droughts, particularly) need to be considered, too. It is notable, in this regard, that the various abstraction scenarios under review entail reductions to the natural flow of the Great Test at the MRF point downstream of Testwood of around 30% to 40%, for several months, in droughts such as those experienced in 1921 and 1976).

The above considerations point to a need for deeper examination of both elements of the risk of delay in migration (likelihood and consequence) than that undertaken so far, to improve the robustness of conclusions reached and of decisions taken. Should the overall risks, post such detailed analysis, be judged to be reliably real and significant, attention should focus on the measures and mitigations best calculated to improve the prospects of early migration, and the health and survivability of fish that are delayed downstream. The measures to be considered might include reducing the impacts of current abstraction and avoiding further adverse impacts by smart abstraction control, smart hydraulic flow field design and smart measuring, monitoring and management systems.

3.3.1.3. The Little Test As to the Little Test, migration of salmon into and up it needs to be understood and protected, no less than in the Great Test. That requires greater consideration of the distinctive flow, hydraulic and migration situation that exists there, compared to that of the Great Test, than has been possible to date. Further assessment of the Little Test must therefore be one of the priorities for future work.

3.3.1.4. Migration into the estuary The matter of migration entry from the sea and into‐river also merits more attention than it has been given to date. Migration of salmon into the Test Estuary from the sea in droughts, and the subsequent survival of the salmon that remain in the lower river are areas of uncertainty and concern.

3.3.2. Opinions and Positions of SWG Members A survey of Group member’s views on the various matters in its ToR was undertaken in August 2015, towards the end of the Group’s term but before a substantial amount of the detailed analyses had been completed. A summary of findings is included in the main TSWG Report but is not repeated here.

3.4. Recommendations on issues to be taken forward The work presented above represents the findings of the STWG over a period of five months, using data and tools to hand. The data are lacking, and the analyses undertaken have been hampered by data and time restrictions. Better evidence to serve better advice is needed.

The following further work is recommended:

Further modelling work  Deeper analysis of the relationship between migration and environmental variables, in both the Little Test and the Great Test, using statistical and time series approaches, but with the caveat that investment in further analyses may or may not lead to the identification of ‘strong relationships’.  Further analysis of the effect of rainfall on migration.  Making more use of the Broadlands salmon catch records as data for calibrating and (separately) validating the migration model.  Improving the Pisces model to make allowances for delayed migration from the estuary and related fish mortality, using data from radio tracking studies in other rivers (and in the River Test, see below).  Incorporating a ‘mortality due to delay’ component into the Pisces model.  Modelling the impact of candidate abstraction rules (using a variety of approaches, not just Pisces).  Analysis of abstraction impacts in a wider range of years.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 26

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

 Sensitivity testing, varying model parameters to see how abstraction impacts would be affected.  Quantification of confidence limits around the Pisces estimates, by season and annually.  Setting up a Little Test migration model, in part to understand why salmon on the Little Test move at much lower flows than on the Great Test and have a similar seasonal profile of migration to those on the Great Test but with a comparatively constant flow regime.  Modelling of movements between the estuary and the river as data become available.

Improved measurement  Improving the measurement of salmon counts in the Great Test and the Little Test.  Improving the reliability and the density of hydrological / hydraulic / environmental data measurement throughout the Lower Test.  Using data logging, telemetry and website technologies to make data available in near real‐ time, for active management of migration‐sensitive controls.  Tracking and telemetry to observe fish behaviours in response to flows and other variables in the Lower Test and the Test Estuary.

Trial and learn programmes of work  Subject to advance agreement of participating parties, design and implement programmes of work, on an informal, collaborative but funded basis, to provide information on the benefits of options such as (a) managing salmon migration and wellbeing and abstraction on a ‘minimise impacts on salmon and on abstraction’ basis; (b) controlling flow and hydraulic regimes in the Lower Test for salmon migration enhancement and abstraction impact reduction basis, including consideration of the practicalities of adoption long‐term.

In broad terms, the timescales for the work identified above would be from 6 to 12 months for the further analytical work, and for the outline design of measurement systems and trials. Tracking and the essential associated environmental monitoring would require two seasons’ work. Site installation works may take a year to effect. Examination of the results from improved measurement systems and from systematic trials of measures and options would need to run over a period of at least five years.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 27

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

4. Augmentation TWG

The Augmentation Technical Working Group comprised the following members:

 Southern Water Nigel Hepworth (Chair), Mike Packman, Simon Cook;  Atkins Ben Piper;  Environment Agency Alison Matthew, Tim Sykes, Adam Cave;  WWF Dr Colin Fenn;  Natural England Charlotte Rose;  Hampshire and IoW Wildlife Trust Ali Morse; and  AMEC Rob Soley

For the purposes of this Summary Report the following terminology is used:

 Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation – the existing infrastructure owned by, licensed to and operated by EA. The infrastructure comprises boreholes, delivery pipeline and the major discharge to the Candover Stream upstream of Grange Lake and hence upstream of the existing environmental designations of the River Itchen SAC and River Itchen SSSI;  Candover Scheme – comprises the existing infrastructure plus a new delivery pipeline (route corridor as yet not determined) that would by-pass the Candover Stream and would discharge to the main River Itchen;  Upper Candover Stream – ephemeral reaches upstream of Grange Lake and hence upstream of the SAC and SSSI; and  Lower Candover Stream – generally the perennial reaches between the downstream end of Grange Lake and the confluence with the River Itchen.

4.1. Objectives The role of this Technical Working Group (TWG) is to provide advice to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resource Steering Group whether or not SWS’s Candover Scheme is an environmentally acceptable and viable component of the water resources solution for the Hampshire South Water WRZ. The TWG advice should be evidence based.

The primary focus of the TWG is the direct environmental acceptability of the Candover Scheme itself but, inevitably some aspects of this acceptability relate to the overall River Itchen SAC Review of Consents, the resultant Site Action Plan and understanding the role the scheme will play in the overall solution for South Hampshire; including for example, the use of demand reduction measures before the Candover Scheme is called-upon.

The pertinent Candover groundwater licence (SO 042 0031 026), is currently owned and operated by the EA – in theory for use to relieve water quality issues that were perceived could arise on the Itchen when the scheme was designed and built in the 1970’s. Southern Water has proposed that ownership will transfer to it if the scheme does become the proposed public water supply support scheme. This ownership / operator aspect has not been a focus of the TWG’s discussions.

The EA has informed the TWG of its application to vary its existing Candover abstraction licence to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive Stage 4 Review of Consents Site Action Plan (SAP). The application should be determined by the Secretary of State by the end of December 2015. It included a reduction in the licensed annual abstraction volume to 3,750 Ml/year (from 5,000 Ml/year).

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 28

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

4.2. Summary of technical work undertaken Previous assessments of impact of the Scheme have been reviewed and further modelling has been undertaken and reviewed in line with the possible operation of the Scheme and to assess the impacts relative to droughts worse than those observed in the historical record. Previous work only assessed the historical record between 1970 and 2011.

Ecological information on the Candover Stream is sparse, especially in relation to scheme-specific or natural impacts during droughts. Other than recognition of the Crayfish population, ecological evidence has not played a significant role in the assessment of impact of the EA Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation (HD Stage 4 Review of Consents and later work) or of the proposed Candover Scheme for water resource purposes. Assessment has been based on flow and groundwater scenario modelling, and judgement of whether additional impacts on those could be significant to ecology.

4.2.1. Review of impacts of using the scheme for water resource purposes. The main metrics identified for assessment of the impacts of using the scheme for water resource purposes were:

 the location and movement of the springhead;  overall [Candover] groundwater level and recovery rates;  the impacts of the use of the scheme during dry and drought episodes relative to what would occur naturally, in those same events, without the use of the scheme;  how marginal the additional impact of using the scheme might be during such episodes; and  understanding how frequently the scheme is likely to be used, to what degree and for what duration.

The TWG collated, discussed and refined “acceptance criteria” for the scheme, drawing these to an overall TWG conclusion, noting any minority views or caveats to the majority Group position.

Previous assessments of impact of the Candover Scheme were reviewed and further modelling was undertaken and reviewed in tune with the possible operation of the Scheme and, to assess the impacts relative to constructed droughts more severe than in the historical record. Two models were used to inform assessment of the additional impacts of operating the Candover Scheme under the following stress-test conditions:

 Test and Itchen groundwater model (2013 version updated for the EA) with simulations covering the Standard Period (1970 to 2010) and a synthetic sequence comprising 4 drought episodes of 36-months duration with intervening average years; and  An Aquator water resources simulation model of the Hampshire South WRZ.

Aquator was used to assess when the Candover Scheme might need to be used. The first step in the process was to identify drought episodes within the Standard (41 year: 1970-2010) Period; these were in the years 1973, 1976, 1992 and 2005 which are widely recognised as dry events and which are spread throughout the Standard Period.

The second step was to construct enhanced, but plausible profiles of the quantities pumped by the Candover Scheme for each of these episodes with which to stress-test possible impacts on the Candover stream and upper Itchen. The pumping profiles have prolonged ramping up and down at the beginning and end of each episode. The enhanced total volume abstracted was kept within the new proposed annual licence quantity of 3,750 Ml.

The Test and Itchen groundwater model was then used to assess the relative changes in flow and winterbourne signatures over a range of observed and synthetic hydrological conditions, and under the different abstraction scenarios typically used by the EA for its CAMS and other assessments. The additional impacts of operating the Candover Scheme were then assessed against these scenarios.

In addition to these four dry year episodes observed during the Standard Period (1970 to 2010) four extreme drought periods of 36-month duration were sampled from the stochastic sequence developed for WRMP14.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 29

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

The constructed drought scenarios are thought to equate to events that are only likely to occur less frequently than on average once in 200 years.

4.2.2. Possible benefits of the SWS Candover Scheme The primary focus of the SWS Candover Scheme is the operation of abstraction to discharge to the River Itchen via a new discharge pipeline to a point on the River Itchen downstream of the confluence of the Candover Steam, the River Alre and the Cheriton Stream. The proposed scheme will however retain the facility to make small discharges to the Candover Stream at the existing ‘major outfall’ if these are deemed beneficial.

The TWG noted that this contribution of support to the Candover Stream could be very beneficial during prolonged periods of low rainfall and hence low or no streamflow. It was also considered that the flow support might also help meet possible future Common Standards Monitoring Guidance (CSMG) flow targets for the lower Candover, although it is recognised that the regulatory application of the CSMG flow targets to statutory WRMPs and Drought Plans and the operational application of CSMG to EA permitting or other assessment has not yet been finalised.

Participants to the TWG noted that the scope of work did not include consideration of ecological issues, so statements of possible environmental benefits would need to be informed by the existing evidence base and further investigations and/or benefits as appropriate.

The TWG concluded that the rules governing small discharges to the Candover Stream should be explored as is it would seem possible to usefully increase support to the Candover without impacting on the public water supply resource of the scheme. However possible dis-benefits of ‘artificial support’ to ecological communities need to be considered before final conclusions are drawn around to what extent or in what way the facility to discharge to the Candover Stream should be used.

4.3. Outcomes TWG discussions reached underlying points of understanding which are summarised under the following headings:-

 Groundwater model;  Findings of the scenario modelling;  Acceptance criteria; and  Review of impacts of using the scheme for water resource purposes.

4.3.1. Use of Test & Itchen groundwater model to inform water resource planning and environmental decisions Concerns about the validity of the EA Test & Itchen groundwater model had been raised by WWF/HIWWT; letter to Southern Water dated 17th December 2014. Exchange of documentation, presentations and discussions at TWG resolved the issues such that WWF and HIWWT were content that the Test & Itchen groundwater model should be used as a tool to inform assessment of the impact of the scheme but with recognition of the caveats around its accuracy / reliability and that it is general practice for groundwater models not to be subject to a formal process of verification.

The TWG recognised that in line with accepted groundwater modelling practice, the groundwater model has been ‘trained’ rather than taken through clear steps of calibration, validation and verification that are often used for other modelling applications. The groundwater model is most appropriate as a tool for assessing relative impacts, rather than for absolute impacts. It can provide outputs at a finer spatial and temporal scale than those available from observation networks but, it cannot provide prediction of effects to precise locations or times. Also, in assessing impacts in drought events more severe than in the historic record (which are sought by all TWG parties), the model will be working beyond the data used to 'train' it to date.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 30

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

4.3.2. Findings of the scenario modelling The impact of operating the scheme under four specified drought events from the historic record and under more severe synthetic drought events have been assessed using the EA T&I groundwater model.

The main findings of water resource modelling work are:-

 In the Standard Period (1970 – 2010) assessment, modelling finds the Candover Scheme could be used up to four times, depending on the scenario assumptions used, such as flow trigger levels for the introduction of demand restrictions, the bulk supply from Portsmouth Water and the continued availability of supplies at the stated deployable output from Testwood (105 M/d). In the worst case scenario, the augmentation scheme would need to be operated for two major episodes:  1973 (autumn); and  1976 (summer, with ramp-down in the autumn) and for two lesser episodes  1992 (autumn); and  2005 (autumn).  These four episodes are considered to give a realistic worst-case set of conditions against which to assess the impacts of operating the scheme.  The two lesser episodes may be avoided by the implementation of demand restriction measures first.  In each case total abstraction is within the proposed new annual licence of 3,750 Ml/year.  There is no appreciable impact on the timing of recovery of groundwater levels as evidenced by the model-derived winterbourne signatures and flows.  There is only minor impact on the magnitude of the recovering flows and groundwater levels, only in the immediate weeks after abstraction ceases.  These impacts are typically to the extent of -5% to -10% of what flows might otherwise have been;  The worst impact is of the order of 16% for about two weeks.  These impacts occur within recovered flows that, despite the impact, could be considered recovered.  More discharge to the Candover stream at the existing major outfall could be made to mitigate these minor impacts if considered beneficial. This would be unlikely to have any increased impact on the overall recovery.  There are minor impacts on the neighbouring winterbournes Dever, Wey and Caker. Of these, the impacts on the Dever are greatest but still only of the order of -5% to -10%, within recovered flows, for a short few weeks following the Candover abstraction.  Overall the ‘hydrological system’ appears to recover quickly in response to the rainfall of these historical sequences and the scheme has only minor, short duration impact within the recovery period, as summarised above.  In assessing four 36-month duration drought episodes constructed to be much worse than those in the historical record, the modelling shows the scheme would need to be used in each of the four drought episodes tested.  The duration of use is longer than found in relation to the droughts of the Standard Period (1970-2010) and tends to reach the annual licence volume (3,750 Ml/year.)  The continuation of use of the scheme could extend into a second year in these scenarios with risk of impacts over this longer period. If this is undesirable, conditions will need to be identified to ensure the environment is protected.  Under these tests the impact on the recovery period extends over a longer period than found in the historical drought scenario tests, but the magnitude of impacts is still typically of the order of -5% to -10% (within recovered flows) and the worst impacts are in the -15% to -20% category. The additional impacts from operating the Candover Scheme on flow and winterbourne signature recovery under such extreme conditions are small.  As with the historical period droughts, the discharge to the Candover shows as beneficial support in some periods (and modelling rules could be refined to provide greater support). This would be unlikely to affect the overall recovery negatively.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 31

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

4.3.3. Acceptance criteria The TWG collated, discussed and refined “acceptance criteria” for the scheme, drawing these to an overall TWG conclusion, noting any minority views or caveats to the majority Group position. The overall list comprises nineteen criteria; all criteria except one were agreed in principle by the whole TWG membership but some have key points of acceptance or concern held more strongly by one or other party. These differences of opinion are highlighted in the final column of the acceptance criteria table in the full Augmentation TWG report.

One criterion is deemed unacceptable – for reason of differing views of individual parties. Overall, a good degree of agreement has been reached in principle but details remain to be resolved. How these remaining issues might be resolved are discussed in Section 4.4.

4.3.3.1. Use of scheme Other members of the TWG insisted on criteria that would mean that the scheme could only be used for water resources purposes once some demand-side measures have been implemented and other sources (for example a bulk supply from Portsmouth Water) have been fully implemented. This is to ensure that the scheme is not used for general operational purposes. Whilst such conditions are not strictly required for the Water Resource Management Plan design condition under the current EA Water Resource Planning Guideline, it is understood that the new WRPG to be used for WRMP19 seeks to converge WRMPs and Drought Plans, so that this issue will be addressed.

Southern Water has accepted such criteria in principle, but requires the groundwater sources to be covered by a permanent abstraction licence with controls on use achieved through an operating agreement. The scheme could not be considered as a WRMP scheme if its use depended on the granting of a Drought Permit or Drought Order.

4.3.3.2. Wider demand management measures WWF believes that drought tariffs, including incentives to customers to reduce water use when water resources are stressed, should be offered by Southern Water as part of the set of demand reduction measures intended by the company.

Southern Water has indicated that whilst it cannot implement drought tariffs in the immediate years ahead, they will be explored and options developed for consultation with customers as part of development of the next water resources management plan (finalisation 2019/20) and so, possible implementation from 2020.

4.3.3.3. Delivery pipeline The WRMP scheme includes the construction of a delivery pipeline that bypasses the reaches of the Candover Stream from the existing major outfall downstream to the confluence with the River Alre and discharges into the main River Itchen. Without a bypass the full output of the augmentation boreholes during periods, when the Upper Candover Stream might in any case be dry, might be detrimental to the population of the native white-clawed crayfish even if the discharge would be attenuated to some extent by the storage in Grange Lake.

It is suggested that the Candover Scheme from WRMP purposes would retain the existing major outfall so that some water could be discharged to the Candover Stream.

Without prejudice to future decisions on applications for permissions, the TWG did not raise any over-riding objections to the concept of the pipeline and a new outfall on the River Itchen, however taking the scheme from concept through planning, detailed design, procurement, construction and delivery requires a series of additional studies to support applications for the necessary permissions.

4.3.3.4. Habitats Directive Stage 4 Review of Consents – River Itchen SAC The Stage 4 Site Action Plan (SAP) was published in October 2007; the technical work that underpinned the SAP was undertaken before then. NE drew the TWG’s attention to new information and changes in status of the River Itchen and its surrounding catchments since the SAP was published.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 32

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Both EA and NE advised the TWG that repeating the Review of Consents process in order to progress the scheme would not be required because the Agency’s abstraction licence renewal process in 2016 and the possible subsequent applications by Southern Water relating to the Candover Scheme for a revised abstraction licence, discharge permits and other permissions would in any case require an in combination HD assessment to be applied. This means that new information, data and other evidence would need to be considered at that time. An Appropriate Assessment at project level would be required at the time to support such applications.

4.3.3.5. Water Framework Directive (WFD) WFD requires water body status to be maintained or improved. The TWG considered that further assessment is needed to determine if further conditions might be required on the proposed scheme to ensure that it does not derogate current status or improvement, or whether the conditions resulting from implementation of the other acceptance criteria should already be sufficient to ensure that WFD requirements are met.

4.4. Advice of the TWG and recommendations on issues to be taken forward The TWG advised that the Candover Scheme could be environmentally acceptable if it is conditioned according to the set of ‘acceptance criteria’ that has been agreed within the TWG. These must be embodied in implementation of the scheme if it is to be acceptable.

The acceptance criteria dictate that the scheme will only operate during drought and when Southern Water’s abstractions on the Lower Itchen at Otterbourne and Twyford have been curtailed by the flow condition to be included in the new licence and, after utilisation of Bulk Supply from Portsmouth Water and implementation of demand restriction measures.

Further development of conditions and environmental assessment is necessary to confirm Scheme acceptability before implementation.

At present, based on the TWG review, Southern Water concludes the scheme can provide a viable deployable output in line with its published Water Resources Management Plan while meeting the acceptance criteria agreed in the TWG.

The TWG recommends that, should the Steering Group conclude that the Candover Scheme is to be taken further, the TWG or an equivalent group should reconvene swiftly to keep the momentum of understanding achieved in the TWG and, move on to more detailed definition of the governing conditions for the Scheme. If endorsing the Candover Scheme TWG or equivalent to reconvene, the Steering Group should advise on respective role of the “Permits” TWG that has not met yet but, is intended.

The TWG report to the Steering Group recommended that the following issues need to be progressed:

 Before being able to renew the existing Candover licence in 2016, the Environment Agency will carry out an assessment of risk to the SAC in an Appropriate Assessment and, to wider ecology, in an environmental assessment.  Independently of the point above, but in agreement with the Environment Agency and Natural England, the company must undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the proposal to modify the scheme for its purposes, including the proposed new pipeline and discharge to the River Itchen.  More detailed discussion, review and specification of proposed licence conditions and possible supporting Operating Agreement, in line with the acceptance criteria;  Further review of the purpose, need and governing rules for small discharges to the Candover Stream;  Further reassurance from the EA, Defra and Ofwat that the intended implementation of this scheme is acceptable relative to overall expectations and guidance across water resources planning, drought planning and achieving levels of service to customers and meeting environmental requirements; and  Development of Memorandum of Understanding with WWF regarding drought tariffs.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 33

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

5. Options TWG

The Options TWG undertook its work between June and November 2015. The composition of the Options TWG is given below:

 Adams Hendry Andy Blaxland (Chair)  Southern Water Meyrick Gough, Nigel Hepworth, Damon Elliott;  Environment Agency Mike O’Neill, Tim Sykes;  WWF‐UK Dr Colin Fenn;  Atkins Rob Sadler, Ben Piper, James Duggin, Liz Coulson;  Natural England Louise Bardsley;  Salmon & Trout Association Dr Janina Gray (Paul Knight);  Barker Mills Estate Simon Barker;  Testwood Fishery Howard Taylor, Mike Johnson;  Hampshire and IoW Wildlife Trust Ali Morse, Martin De Retuerto;  Test & Itchen Association Neil Freeman; and  Wessex Chalk Streams and Rivers Trust Paul Jose.

5.1. Objectives The Options TWG was formed to make an assessment of potential water resource options available to contribute either demand or supply side measures to support public water supplies within Southern Water’s Hampshire South WRZ. This is the WRZ within which the River Test SSSI and River Itchen SAC are located, and from which significant abstractions for public water supply are currently taken. The Isle of Wight WRZ also formed part of the study as it is directly linked with Hampshire South through the cross-Solent main (underwater pipeline). Treated water from the Testwood WSW is then transferred through this pipeline to the Isle of Wight.

As defined in its agreed terms of reference, the objective of the Options TWG was:

To draw on work undertaken to date, updated to reflect recent and ongoing work on individual options and schemes, to enable decisions to be taken on potential water resource options for the Hampshire South and Isle of Wight WRZs.

5.2. Summary of technical work undertaken The Options TWG followed a staged assessment process for the potential options. Technical work was undertaken by Atkins and Adams Hendry staff, with information then circulated to the Options TWG for discussion and comment.

The review of potential options was undertaken in three stages as defined in the terms of reference: i. Identify and review an unconstrained list of potential options; ii. Undertake screening to develop a constrained listed of options; and iii. Refine of the constrained options set to develop a set of feasible options that will then be assessed to derive the preferred strategy of water resource options to maintain the supply demand balance in this supply area.

The principal sources of information underpinning the work of the Options TWG, and utilised by Atkins and Adams Hendry were:

 Southern Water; Water Resources Management Plan 2014 (WRMP14) and supporting documentation;  WRMPs for adjoining water companies and supporting documentation;  Environment Agency; Habitats Directive Stage 4 Review of Consents, and supporting studies;

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 34

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

 Published environmental, social and economic information relevant to potential options; and  Findings and outcomes from the two other TWGs.

Whilst many water resources options had previously been identified and assessed through the WRMP14 process, the Options TWG identified a number of potential new options, together with a range of potential catchment management options. Each option was subjected to the same assessment process:

 Identify and review an unconstrained list of potential options (see Section 5.2.1);  Undertake screening to develop a constrained list of options (see Section 5.2.2); and  Refinement of the constrained options (see Section 5.2.3).

5.2.1. Identify and review an unconstrained list of potential options At its first meeting (18th June 2015) the Options TWG discussed its terms of reference, the proposed options appraisal process and screening criteria, and an ‘Unconstrained’ Options list.

The screening criteria were devised to reflect the approach adopted for WRMP14, enabling a high level assessment to be made for each option, informing a decision by the Options TWG on whether the option should be rejected at that stage, or taken forward for more detailed consideration.

At the time of the first meeting the Unconstrained Options list extended to about 280 potential water resources options, ranging from new reservoirs, bulk supplies, desalination, water re-use, tariffs and demand management, and catchment management options. The unconstrained list comprised options from WRMP14, options identified as a result of brainstorming by the Atkins and Adams Hendry team, and options identified by the EA and by the Options TWG members and member organisations. Following the first meeting, a revised unconstrained options list with brief descriptions of the options was issued to the Options TWG.

5.2.2. Undertake screening to develop a constrained listed of options Between the first and second meeting, Atkins and Adams Hendry undertook the screening assessment of all of the unconstrained options. The outputs from this work were then presented to the second Options TWG meeting (20th July 2015) in the form of recommendations on each of the options that had been assessed, either that it should be rejected, that it should be taken forward for further assessment, or that a discussions was needed or further information secured.

The Options TWG worked through these schedules in meeting 2, agreeing a list of options that should be excluded, including reasons for exclusion, and agreeing a list of options that should be taken forward for further assessment (the constrained options list).

A number of options were not clearly enough defined for conclusions to be reached, and so these were also taken forward to enable more work to be completed on them.

5.2.3. Refinement of the constrained options The next step was to refine the constrained options set to develop a set of feasible options that will then be assessed to derive the preferred strategy of water resource options to maintain the supply demand balance in this supply area. Taking the lists of options from meeting 2, Atkins and Adams Hendry then undertook additional investigation and assessment of each of the options. Advice was also sought from the Salmon TWG on the potential environmental benefits of the different types of catchment management options under consideration.

This work enabled a ‘proforma’ to be drafted for each of the individual constrained options, providing a description and assessment of the option against previously agreed criteria. These proformas extended to up to 15 pages in length, and included plans and engineering descriptions, environmental and planning and consenting information.

The completed proformas were issued to the Options TWG Members via Dropbox prior to TWG meeting 3 (1st October 2015). During Options TWG meeting 3 these were then reviewed, enabling issues arising to be

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 35

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report discussed, and conclusions drawn on the list of potentially feasible options. These options would then be available for selection as part of decision making about future water resources and catchment management scheme implementation.

5.3. Outcomes A list of some 241 unconstrained options was identified as a result of Options TWG meeting 1. A list of the option types and the number of options within each category is given in Table 5-1.

Through the screening of the unconstrained options list, meeting 2 of the Options TWG identified three sets of options; i. those for further investigation; ii. those for further investigation but where advice should be sought from the Salmon TWG; and iii. those that should be excluded from further consideration.

Table 5-2 shows the breakdown of options in the constrained list (including those where advice was to be sought from the Salmon TWG).

The relatively large number of catchment management measures reflected the fact that the Options TWG did not consider it had enough information on the detail of many of these options to be able to determine whether they were feasible or would deliver environmental benefits, e.g. for salmon migration. Advice was sought from the Salmon TWG on these issues.

The further assessment work undertaken between Options TWG meetings 2 and 3 identified a small number of options as no longer being potentially feasible, so amendments were made to option descriptions or engineering details to reflect the additional work undertaken.

The completed proformas for the options were reported to Options TWG meeting 3, where the outcomes of the assessments were discussed and conclusions drawn on whether options were considered to be potentially feasible or not. The purpose of the discussion was not to arrive at a single shortlist of options to be taken forward for implementation now, but rather to identify a longlist of feasible options that could potentially be implemented in the future, if selected through water resources modelling, WRMP or other processes.

The Options TWG discussed the proformas and options to identify the feasible options; the number of feasible options within each option type is given in Table 5-3.

The options list includes both large and smaller scale options that are considered to be potentially feasible. The Options TWG made clear that in identifying an option as feasible, it did not mean that the option was yet proven to be acceptable and that further investigations and assessment work would be necessary prior to and as part of any consenting processes for those options selected for implementation.

During the Options TWG meeting 3, the EA noted that it was in the process of writing to Southern Water to state its current position on the RSA process and emerging outcomes. It indicated that subject to Southern Water’s response to the letter, a potential way forward had been identified. This would enable changes to be made to Southern Water’s existing licences on the River Itchen and River Test to facilitate the implementation of the Sustainability Reductions on the River Itchen sources. Public water supplies would be safeguarded through implementation of a transfer of water from Portsmouth Water Company, the Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation, and through implementation of a raw water transfer pipeline from Testwood to Otterbourne. These were all subject to necessary permissions and consents being secured. The Testwood licence would become a time limited licence, and investigations of catchment management and other water resource options would be progressed to ensure that appropriate longer term solutions were identified and implemented.

Those members of the Options TWG present at meeting 3 indicated that if such an approach was to be adopted, they wished to see real and meaningful progress being made on the investigation of the catchment

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 36

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report management and other potential water resource options. They, and their organisations, would not accept a situation where the way forward was agreed and then actions were delayed or did not happen.

5.4. Recommendations on issues to be taken forward In the context of the above, the Options TWG recommended that a number of areas of work needed to be taken forward. It was accepted that this lay beyond the scope of the Options TWG to do this work, but recommended that a similar grouping or groupings of stakeholders needed to be brought together to be involved in and to influence the outcomes of this work.

The recommendations for work to be taken forward were as follows:

 Investigation of the 21 potential catchment management options on the feasible options list, together with any variations to those options or new options that might be identified through the work to be undertaken. The purpose of the investigation would be to identify specific catchment management measures that could be implemented to benefit the environment, including Salmon migration. Once identified, this work could extend to cover the implementation and monitoring of catchment management measures, to identify the real benefits that they deliver, to inform the implementation of additional or alternative measures in the future; and  Investigation of the 71 other feasible options, to ensure that sufficient information is available on them to enable informed decisions to be taken on the most appropriate options to be implemented to secure public water supplies in the long term, whilst protecting and enhancing the environment.

Specifically, as part of investigating the 71 other feasible options, to undertake technical studies of the following options to ensure that engineering, planning and promotion and likely environmental impacts of the potential options are properly understood:

 potential desalination options on the Solent (including the potential effects of brine discharge in upper estuarine conditions);  relocated highly treated wastewater treatment works discharges available for use to support river flows in the River Test and River Itchen when required (including the potential effects on water quality and Salmon migration); and  Havant Thicket reservoir implementation options.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 37

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Table 5-1 Unconstrained options list

Option Type RSA option categories Unconstrained list

Managing existing assets Asset Enhancement 1

Enabling transfers (inter-zonal) 8

Enabling transfers (within WRZ) 6

Water treatment works 7

Drought Planning 5

Licencing and operational 8

Demand Management Leakage Management 7

Metering/Tariffs 4

Water Efficiency 47

Managing the water Borehole rehabilitation 5 environment Catchment Management 40

Supporting river flows 5

New Water Canal Water Abstraction 1

Desalination 12

New Groundwater Abstractions 5

Surface water abstractions 8

Storing Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery 9

Reservoirs 11

Trading Water Bulk supplies 29

Licence Trading 3

Water Re‐use Direct Water Reuse 1

Industrial Water Reuse 8

River Augmentation 9

Water Reuse 2

Total 241

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 38

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Table 5-2 Constrained options list

Option Type RSA option categories Constrained list

Managing existing assets Asset Enhancement 0

Enabling transfers (inter-zonal) 1

Enabling transfers (within WRZ) 4

Water treatment works 4

Drought Planning 0

Licencing and operational 7

Demand Management Leakage Management 4

Metering/Tariffs 3

Water Efficiency 4

Managing the water Borehole rehabilitation 0 environment Catchment Management 23

Supporting river flows 2

New Water Canal Water Abstraction 0

Desalination 4

New Groundwater Abstractions 0

Surface water abstractions 7

Storing Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery 1

Reservoirs 7

Trading Water Bulk supplies 11

Licence Trading 0

Water Re-use Direct Water Reuse 0

Industrial Water Reuse 6

River Augmentation 6

Water Reuse 0

Total 94

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 39

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

Table 5-3 Feasible options list

Option Type RSA option categories Constrained list

Managing existing assets Asset Enhancement 0

Enabling transfers (inter-zonal) 1

Enabling transfers (within WRZ) 4

Water treatment works 4

Drought Planning 0

Licencing and operational 6

Demand Management Leakage Management 4

Metering/Tariffs 3

Water Efficiency 4

Managing the water Borehole rehabilitation 0 environment Catchment Management 23

Supporting river flows 2

New Water Canal Water Abstraction 0

Desalination 4

New Groundwater Abstractions 0

Surface water abstractions 7

Storing Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery 1

Reservoirs 6

Trading Water Bulk supplies 11

Licence Trading 0

Water Re-use Direct Water Reuse 0

Industrial Water Reuse 6

River Augmentation 4

Water Reuse 0

Total 90

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 40

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

6. Summary of recommended way forward

At the start of the 2014-2105 RSA investigation it was recognised that although the individual TWGs and the over-arching Steering Group might reach evidence-based recommendations, it would ultimately be up to the EA to decide on the next steps. The work of the TWGs had been planned to provide their recommendations to the Steering Group in time to allow the EA to decide whether it could reach a decision on what changes, if any, it considered needed to be made and also the timetable from implementation. It was anticipated that the River Test was likely to be a new item for the AMP6 National Environment Programme in the updated list of projects due for issue in January 2016.

As noted in Section 5.2.3 the EA wrote to Southern Water to set out its position based on the progress made by each of the TWGs at that stage and an awareness that the conclusions of the TWGs would not be definitive. In this letter (dated 30th September 2015 and included in Appendix A) the EA noted concerns that the work of the TWGs should be brought together and that is one of the main purposes of this report. It also highlighted a number of technical issues where it requires additional work to be undertaken before it can finalise its proposed changes to the Testwood licence. In the letter the EA also put forward proposed seasonal hands off flow conditions for the Great Test at Testwood Bridge and the River Test at its entry to Southampton Water which had been modified since the EA’s letter of 9th March 2015.

Regarding timescales, the EA stated that it was prepared to delay the implementation of these flow conditions until 2025. The purpose of this delay was to enable Southern Water to do the following:

1. Implement the measures required to enable the required changes to the Itchen abstraction licences to be implemented by 2018,; 2. Undertake further investigations as set out in this report to:  enhance the understanding of the impact of abstraction on salmon migration and health;  assess the potential of local catchment and in-stream options to improve salmon migration and health; and  assess in more detail the alternative water resource options available to resolve the deficit in the supply demand balance that would arise from implementing the flow conditions that the EA is minded to impose on the Testwood licence. 3. Based on the further investigations undertaken in item 2 above, develop and implement the preferred solutions to allow the changes in the Testwood Licence to be made by 2025.

The EA also noted that in 2016 it intended to:

1. carry out an Appropriate Assessment, wider environmental assessment and WFD assessment of the Candover licence; and 2. modify the Testwood licence to reflect recent use but still allow the licence to be used under specified conditions when abstraction has to be limited from the River Itchen.

SWS’ full response to the letter (dated 14th October 2015 and included in Appendix A) includes important detail. Focusing on the next steps and the way forward, the main points included:

1. SWS was pleased that the EA’s proposed approach would allow the company to pursue implementation of its published WRMP, facilitating implementation of the River Itchen Site Action Plan and allowing time to further assess the River Test issues. 2. SWS noted that licence changes that reduce the company’s deployable output could not be made until alternative supplies have been secured to replace the reduction from existing schemes, this was true for both the River Test and the River Itchen. 3. The company noted that there are a number of risks around the proposed implementation schemes that meant it was not in a position to guarantee that a licence change could be made at a fixed date. It would

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 41

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

aim to achieve schemes within 2018, and so the Itchen licence change by 2018, but some flexibility would be required.

While the EA and Southern Water are still engaged in further discussion and correspondence regarding some of the detail, including the timescales involved, both are agreed that the next stage of work needs to progress without any loss of momentum. Southern Water has therefore started the process of developing the scope of technical work and a full programme of additional investigations will commence in the early part of 2016.

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 42

River Test – Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) Summary Report

7. References in this summary report

A list of the main reports referred to in this summary report is given in Table 7-1; the full reports of the individual TWGs contain additional references.

Table 7-1 List of reports referred to in this report

Short Reference Project Report EA, 2009 Lower Test Project Phase 1 Flow Diversion Scoping Report. Environment Agency, 2009 EA, 2010 Testwood Public Water Supply Abstraction Impact Investigation – Statement of Issues & Assessment Version 2.0. Environment Agency 25 March 2010 (EA, 2010) EA, 2011 Baseline Data Report. Version 2.1, Environment Agency 18 February 2011 (EA, 2011)

Atkins, 2012a Lower Test NEP Investigation Lower Test NEP - Draft, February 2012 Atkins, 2012b Lower Test NEP - Revised Final Draft, July 2012 Atkins, 2013 Lower Test NEP – Issued for sign-off, 10 October 2013

Atkins, 2014a Testwood Licence Review The Evaluation of the Environmentally Acceptable Level of Abstraction from the Lower River Test, Draft Report February 2014 Atkins, 2014b The Evaluation of the Environmentally Acceptable Level of Abstraction from the Lower River Test, Draft Final Report March 2014 Atkins, 2014c The Evaluation of the Environmentally Acceptable Level of Abstraction from the Lower River Test, Final Report June 2014

Atkins, 2012c Itchen NEP Scheme Pump testing and associated investigations of the Candover and Alre augmentation schemes, summer 2011, Final Report November 2012

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 43

Appendices

Appendix A. List of documentation referred to in main text

From To Date Title Simon Moody John Spence 10 August 2012 Final Draft of the Lower Test NEP Report Simon Moody John Spence 19 October 2012 Finalising the Lower Test NEP Investigation Sarah Goode Meyrick Gough 21 December 2012 Response to your WRMP pre- consultation request for information for Southern Water Services Mel Karam James Humphrys 6 February 2013 River Itchen NEP James Humphrys Mel Karam 21 February 2013 Lower Test and River Itchen NEP Projects EA Southern Water 15 November 2013 Lower Test Abstraction Licence Review Scope of Further Technical Work to Determine The Level of Abstraction from the River Test that is Environmentally Acceptable Simon Moody David Smith 9 January 2014 Lower Test NEP Investigation Matthew Wright Howard Davidson 19 March 2014 River Test Scheme Defra Meyrick Gough 17 September 2014 Southern Water – Water Resources Management Plan Mike O’Neill Meyrick Gough 9 March 2015 Environmental Outcomes – Testwood Licence Mike O’Neill Simon Oates 30 September 2015 Restoring Sustainable Abstraction to the Rivers Itchen and Test Simon Oates Mike O’Neill 14 October 2015 Restoring Sustainable Abstraction to the Rivers Itchen and Test

Atkins Hampshire and Isle of Wight Water Resources Steering Group | Version 2.0 | 29 January 2016 | 5141301 45

Ben Piper Atkins Oasis Business Park Eynsham Oxford OX29 4AH

[email protected]

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise.

The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.