DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 7 Cover Sheet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix 7 Cover Sheet Revised draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Statement of Response Appendix 7: Our detailed response to all non- questionnaire respondent comments September 3rd 2018 Appendix Respondent 7.1 Environment Agency 7.2 Natural England 7.3 Ofwat 7.4 Historic England 7.5 West Sussex County Council 7.6 Kent County Council 7.7 Hampshire County Council 7.8 WortHing & Adur Councils 7.9 Test Valley BorougH Council 7.10 New Forest National Park AutHority 7.11 Dover District Council 7.12 Canterbury City Council 7.13 New Forest District Council 7.14 Partnership for Urban SoutH Hampshire (PUSH) 7.15 Royal Society for tHe Protection of Birds (RSPB) 7.16 Salmon & Trout Conservation UK 7.17 National Farmers Union (NFU) 7.18 Kent Wildlife Trust and Sussex Wildlife Trust 7.19 Hampshire & Isle of WigHt Wildlife Trust 7.20 Arun & RotHer Rivers Trust 7.21 Wessex CHalk Streams and Rivers Trust 7.22 SoutH East Rivers Trust 7.23 Canal & Rivers Trust 7.24 SoutH West Water 7.25 Affinity Water 7.26 PortsmoutH Water 7.27 Wessex Water 7.28 West Country Water Resources Group 7.29 Mr CHris Lowe 7.30 Mr William Cutting 7.31 Tracey Crouch MP 7.32 Fawley Waterside Ltd 7.33 Little River Management and Barker Mill Estate 7.34 Isle of WigHt Rowing Forum 7.35 Arun District Council 7.36 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Appendix 7.1: Environment Agency Information or changes SWS' Consideration of Response Changes Required to dWRMP Area of issue Issue and evidence Implications required Recommendation 1: Improve its approach to outage Southern Water has experienced high outage in three of its resource zones for the last two years that has resulted in or contributed to a dry year deficit in supplies. In its draft Southern Water have set out an outage recovery profile for specific sources that will be delivered during the remainder of AMP 6 and AMP 7. The outage allowance adopted thereafter has been based on a historic analysis of The outage methodology is detailed in appendix plan, the company has not demonstrated that it has made sufficient progress in addressing this issue, with high outage continuing to be forecast in the early years of the total and partial outage that is appropriate for unplanned events. F to Annex 3. Also see Annex 3 Section 8 for a planning period. It is not clear if the company has used recent observed outage data to inform its assessment of outage. Doing this will ensure that its forecasts of outage are high level summary of the appendix achievable, accurate and realistic. The company also states that it has followed the recommended UKWIR guidance to assess outage, but it is unclear in the plan if this is the This profile forms an updated outage allowance scenario reducing to 34.61 Ml by 2025 for a normal/dry year. This method is based on actual outage and schemes to reduce outage. The analysis we completed and presented case. It has not used its risk-based planning methodology to assess and forecast outage. This is out of line with the approach the company has taken across the rest of its in the draft Water Resources Management Plan will act as support for this approach, showing that based on historical analysis these levels of outage can be maintained. Furthermore a level of uncertainty is built into the model draft plan. It is unclear why the company has chosen to do this or what the implications of this are to the plan. If actual outage is higher than estimated in the plan, this poses a for outage that could be experienced whilst the outage recovery plan is being implemented. This will add more resilience to each of the water resource zones. The methodology will be detailed in an appendix to Annex 3. risk to the security of supplies in a dry year. The company should improve its approach to assessing outage, and describe what it will do to achieve further reductions to outage and show that outage does not contribute to or cause dry year deficits. R1.1: High outage The company has indicated high outage compared to WRMP14 outage allowance in its If the company has not The company should provide An outage recovery plan has been implemented for the remainder of AMP 6 bringing outage levels down to 76.30. The start of the plan (2020) will therefore see a higher level of outage allowance (76.30). A further reduction The outage methodology is detailed in appendix experienced Annual Reviews reporting for 2015/16 and 2016/17. This resulted in concerns to the assessed the outage further information on the outage in AMP 7 has been planned, bringing the levels of outage down to 34.61 by 2025. This profile has been adopted for one of the scenarios to be tested in the investment modelling. The profile in the plan thus follows the F to Annex 3. Also see Annex 3 Section 8 for a security of supply in the case of a dry year for 3 of the company’s water resources allowance adequately there assessment to demonstrate how planned outage recovery profile and is based on schemes that will be delivered by 2025. For 1:200 and 1:500 year droughts the approach post 2025 is to reduce the outage to the full outage levels maintained during the high level summary of the appendix zones. It is a concern that the company may not deliver its outage recovery plan and is a risk that the company these high outage events have 2006 drought and adding on the partial outage calculated for 2025 under the outage recovery plan (no partial outage data available for 2006 (29.45)) in order to get a total outage figure. The methodology will be detailed in hence start the WRMP19 plan period (2020 onwards) with higher levels of outage may again experience higher been incorporated into the an appendix to Annex 3. experienced than the draft WRMP19 suggests. outage than planned posing outage calculation. It should also R1.1 a risk to the security of provide some reassurance supply. around the recovery of outage to ensure that the planned outage allowance in WRMP19 is appropriate. UKWIR Outage The company states that it uses the UKWIR (1995) outage allowances for water If the company is not The company should fully explain The data required to follow the UKWIR (1995) guidance in it's entirety is unavailable. In light of this several approaches to outage were considered. Firstly a similar method used to PR14 was used, secondly a methodology The outage methodology is detailed in appendix allowance resources planning methodology. However, it is not clear whether this methodology has following the UKWIR (1995) and demonstrate that it has used based on a planned outage profile was used (detail of both approaches will be included as an appendix to annex 3). F to Annex 3. Also see Annex 3 Section 8 for a methodology (1995) been followed. In Annex 3 the company provides a summary output of the outage outage methodology it may and followed the correct Rather than over or underestimating outage allowance in the plan, the allowance will be based upon actual achievable outage and supported by the original methodology. high level summary of the appendix method used but it provides little detail as to the derivation of the estimates. be overestimating or methodology to calculate its An additional unpublished supporting document has been presented to the Environment underestimating the outage outage allowance. If this differs Agency which provides further information of the outage assessment. However, there is allowance in the plan. from the UKWIR (1995) outage still a lack of clarity about whether the methodology has been followed correctly. This could result in issues allowance methodology the The outage calculation in the plan is based on an outage allowance where the number that have been identified in company should fully outline how of sources increases the outage percentile as resilience increases. This is based on a the past two Annual Reviews the approach differs and justify linear regression graph, however, it is not clear how this has been calculated. of the WRMP14, where the reason for this deviation. The company has presented its outage allowance for each zone and provided a brief actual outage experienced The company has provided some R1.2 explanation of how it has calculated these figures. The company states that it re-ran the has been significantly higher data, however, it is not clear how existing UKWIR (1995) methodology as used in previous WRMP’s. than the planned outage the company has used the When reviewing the 2009 and 2014 WRMP it is not clear the assessment is in line with allowance, resulting in a risk UKWIR (1995) methodology to the UKWIR methodology. There is no mention of determining probability distributions for to security of supply in a dry develop its outage allowance magnitude, duration or frequency for sourceworks outage events or of a Monte Carlo year scenario. figures. The company should analysis (500 iterations recommended) to develop a single distribution which will feed fully outline the method used into the outage allowance calculation. and how historic data has been Furthermore, it is unclear whether the company calculates outage events for individual used. sources or sourceworks; UKWIR (1995) states that it should be outage events for sourceworks that are calculated. Outage allowance The company has used data from historical outage events and the number of sources in The outage allowance for The company should Under the new methodology Hampshire Kingsclere and Hampshire Southampton East still have zero full outage, this is because they currently have no outage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beach Recharge in Sussex & East Kent
    BEACH RECHARGE IN SUSSEX & EAST KENT: A PRELIMINARY INVENTORY & OVERVIEW Compiled by R. Williams, edited by C. Moses. Not to be quoted without permission 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 2 Inventory of beach recharge schemes ..............................................................................5 3 Notes and sources ............................................................................................................9 4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................17 5 References......................................................................................................................21 1 Introduction Sand and shingle are being lost from many beaches in Sussex and Kent as a result of natural coastal processes as well as ill-designed sea defence and coastal protection schemes. To counteract falling beach levels, the Environment Agency and local authorities are increasingly resorting to “topping-up” the beaches with additional sand and shingle. Several terms are currently employed to refer to the artificial provision of extra beach material, but there is disagreement about their precise definition. For the purpose of this report, beach nourishment (or beach replenishment) is defined as the supply of material that has been dredged from the seabed or extracted from inland sand and gravel pits. Beach recycling is defined as the removal
    [Show full text]
  • SDOS Programme 2021 Version 1.Pdf
    Provisional Events Programme 2021 https://www.sdos.org/ mailto:[email protected] Outings Programme We follow all Government guidelines relating to special precautions resulting from the Covid19 pandemic. Where necessary we will have to severely restrict the numbers of members on field outings and information on how to register for these will be sent by email. You can see up-to-date information on our events on the home page of our website. Month Location Leader Note Sat Jan 9th Pagham Habour - North Wall & Lagoon Bernie Forbes Full Jan Arundel Bernie Forbes Imp Wed. Feb 10th Waltham Brooks Roger Smith Half Thurs Feb 18th Henfield area Val Bentley Half Mar Warnham LNR Brianne Reeve Imp Sun Mar 7th Chichester Marina & Dell Quay Bernie Forbes Full Apr Goring Sea Watch Clive Hope Imp Sat Apr 24th Hope Gap, Cuckmere, Seaford Jen & Tim Holter Half May Woods Mill (Dawn Chorus) Brianne Reeve Imp May Woods Mill (Evening - Nightingales) Val Bentley Imp May Truleigh Hill Terry Goble Imp Fri May 21st Lavington Common Bernie Forbes Eve Tue Jun 1st Iping Common Simon Moffat Half June Bramber Brooks LNR Brianne Reeve Imp Jul Ferring Tricia Hall Imp Aug Thorney Island Clive Hope Imp Sat Sept 4th Cissbury Ring Clive Hope Half Tue Oct 12th Climping Beach & Atherington Clive Hope Half Oct River Adur Walk Tony Benton Imp Nov Beeding Brooks Terry Goble Imp Nov West Dean Woods Bernie Forbes Imp Sat Dec 4th Burpham & The Burgh Bernie Forbes Half Fri Dec 31st Shoreham Beach & Widewater All Half Key:- Imp – Impromptu, Full – Full Day, Half – Half Day Zoom Meetings
    [Show full text]
  • England Coast Path East Head to Shoreham By
    www.gov.uk/englandcoastpath England Coast Path East Head to Shoreham by Sea Natural England’s Report to the Secretary of State: Overview 2 England Coast Path | East Head to Shoreham by Sea | Natural England’s Report to the Secretary of State | Overview Advice on reading the report This report sets out for approval by the Secretary of State our proposals for the England Coast Path and associated Coastal Margin on this stretch of coast. It is published on our web pages as a series of separate documents, alongside more general information about how the Coastal Access programme works: Overview This document is called the Overview. It explains the overall context for the report and includes background information which is helpful in understanding our proposals. It also provides key information concerning specific aspects of our proposals, including roll-back and access restrictions or exclusions. Please read the Overview first – in particular part 3, which includes notes to help you understand the detailed proposals and accompanying maps. Proposals Chapters 1 to 6 are called the proposals. These set out and explain the access provisions we propose for each length of coast to which they relate. Each chapter is accompanied by detailed maps of the relevant length of coast. The maps are numbered according to the part of the chapter to which they relate. For example, maps 1.a to 1.c illustrate the proposals in chapter 1. Using Map A (previous page) Map A shows the whole of the East Head to Shoreham by Sea stretch divided into short numbered lengths of coast, from East Head at the western end (Chapter 1) to Shoreham by Sea at the eastern end (Chapter 6).
    [Show full text]
  • A27 Arundel Bypass Report on Further Consultation
    A27 Arundel Bypass Report on Further Consultation Appendix D: Other written responses from organisations (vol.2) Pacific House (Second Floor) Hazelwick Avenue Three Bridges Crawley RH10 1EX 01293 305965 coast2capital.org.uk By e-mail 23 October 2019 Dear Highways England, I am writing on behalf of Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership in response to Highways England A27 Arundel Bypass Further Consultation. Coast to Capital is a unique business-led collaboration between the private, public and education sectors across a diverse area which includes East Surrey, Greater Brighton and West Sussex. The consultation material summarises well the national and regional significance of the A27, “As the main route serving the south coast, the A27 corridor is crucial to the region’s success. A population of more than 1 million people rely on the A27, and growth plans for the region mean this number is only set to increase.” The need to reduce congestion and improve movement of people and goods along the A27 from Brighton to Portsmouth is widely recognised, specifically in order to increase the local and regional economy, with widespread support for an appropriate intervention at Arundel. The limitations of the A27 are part of a wider picture of infrastructure challenges in the Coast to Capital area that restrict our economic growth compared to other parts of the South East. The national significance of this scheme is recognised in Government’s own 2015-2020 Road Investment Strategy (RIS1). We are pleased that Highways England continues to take a consultative approach to this important scheme. The need to support growth must also be carefully balanced with environmental and social impacts given the setting of existing and proposed routes.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Local Plan (2013 - 2028) Consultation Document
    Your 2013-2028 Arun District Council Draft Local Plan (2013 - 2028) Consultation Document your surroundings where you work where you live how you travel Consultation period 19th July to 10th September 2012 Contents 1 Foreword 8 Introduction 2 Overview 11 3 Vision & Objectives 16 4 Spatial Portrait 21 5 The Key Diagram 32 5.1 Arun Key Diagram 32 6 Implementation & Monitoring 34 7 Sustainable Development 35 8 The Built-Up Area Boundary 37 Prosperous Place 9 Employment & Enterprise 42 9.1 Coast to Capital LEP Map 45 9.2 Coastal West Sussex Partnership Map 46 9.3 Strategic Employment Land Allocations 47 9.4 Other Employment Land Allocations 50 9.5 Enhancement of Employment Premises and Sites 53 9.6 Littlehampton Harbour 57 9.7 Economic Improvement and Skills 61 9.8 Telecommunications 63 9.9 Economic Development Outside the Built Up Area Boundary 70 10 Retail 76 10.1 Retail Development 80 11 Tourism 86 11.1 Tourism Related Development 88 12 Soil, Horticultural & Equine Developments 93 12.1 Soil 93 Arun District Council Local Plan Contents 12.2 Horticulture 94 12.3 Garden Centres 98 12.4 Equine Development 101 Living Place 13 Housing Delivery 105 13.1 Housing Allocations 105 13.2 Affordable Housing 114 13.3 Rural Housing & Exception Sites 119 13.4 Houses in Multiple Occupation 123 13.5 Independent Living & Care Homes 125 13.6 Traveller Accommodation 128 13.7 Agricultural, Forestry & Horticultural Worker's Dwellings 131 14 Design 137 14.1 Aspects of Form and Design Quality 137 14.2 Internal & External Space Standards 150 14.3 Extensions and
    [Show full text]
  • PEIR Chapter 16 Seascpae, Landscape and Visual
    2.16 Volume 2, Chapter 16 Seascape, landscape and visual 2 © Wood Group UK Limited Contents Figure list 4 16. Offshore seascape landscape and visual amenity 9 16.1 Introduction 9 16.2 Relevant legislation, policy and other information and guidance 10 Introduction 10 Legislation and national planning policy 10 Local planning policy 16 Other relevant information and guidance 19 16.3 Consultation and engagement 20 Overview 20 Early engagement 20 Scoping opinion 21 Informal consultation and engagement 23 Evidence Plan Process (EPP) 24 16.4 Scope of the assessment 26 Overview 26 Spatial scope and study area 26 Temporal scope 26 Potential receptors 26 Potential effects 30 Activities or impacts scoped out of assessment 32 16.5 Methodology for baseline data gathering 34 Overview 34 Desk study 34 Site surveys 39 Data limitations 40 16.6 Baseline conditions 41 Current Baseline 41 Future baseline 125 16.7 Basis for PEIR assessment 126 Maximum design scenario 126 Embedded environmental measures 131 16.8 Methodology for PEIR assessment 135 Introduction 135 Summary of SLVIA methodology 135 Visual representations methodology 139 16.9 Preliminary assessment: Construction phase 139 Effects on Seascape Character 139 Effects on Landscape Character 140 Effects on views and visual amenity 140 16.10 Preliminary assessment: Operation and maintenance phase 141 Rampion 2 PEIR. Volume 2 Chapter 16: Seascape, landscape and visual amenity 3 © Wood Group UK Limited Introduction 141 South Downs National Park (SDNP) 141 West Sussex South Coast Plain 199 East Sussex
    [Show full text]
  • PEIR Chapter 14 Nature Conservation
    2.14 Volume 2, Chapter 14 Nature Conservation Rampion 2 PEIR. Volume 2, Chapter 14: Nature conservation 2 © Wood Group UK Limited Contents 14. Nature conservation 5 14.1 Introduction 5 14.2 Relevant legislation, policy and other information and guidance 6 Introduction 6 Legislation and national planning policy 6 Local planning policy 11 Other relevant information and guidance 12 14.3 Consultation and engagement 13 Overview 13 Early engagement 13 Scoping opinion 14 Evidence Plan Process (EPP) 17 Informal consultation and engagement 21 14.4 Scope of the assessment 22 Overview 22 Spatial scope and study area 22 Temporal scope 23 Potential receptors 23 Potential effects 26 Activities or impacts scoped out of assessment 29 14.5 Methodology for baseline data gathering 30 Overview 30 Desk study 30 Data limitations 32 14.6 Baseline conditions 33 Current baseline 33 Statutory National Designations 35 Non-statutory designations 36 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 40 Future baseline 41 14.7 Basis for PEIR assessment 41 Maximum design scenario 41 Embedded environmental measures 42 14.8 Methodology for PEIR assessment 45 Introduction 45 Impact Assessment Criteria 46 14.9 Preliminary assessment: Construction phase 47 Temporary increase in suspended sediment and sediment deposition on subtidal designated features 47 Temporary increase in suspended sediment and sediment deposition on intertidal designated sites 49 Impacts to mobile features of designated sites 51 Rampion 2 PEIR. Volume 2, Chapter 14: Nature conservation 3 © Wood Group UK Limited 14.10
    [Show full text]
  • Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester Harbour
    Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 8 Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester Harbour edited by J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson, S.S. Kaznowska, J.P. Doody, N.C. Davidson & A.L. Buck Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY UK ©JNCC 1998 This volume has been produced by the Coastal Directories Project of the JNCC on behalf of the Project Steering Group. JNCC Coastal Directories Project Team Project directors Dr J.P. Doody, Dr N.C. Davidson Project management and co-ordination J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson Editing and publication S.S. Kaznowska, A.L. Buck Administration & editorial assistance J. Plaza, P.A. Smith, N.M. Stevenson The project receives guidance from a Steering Group which has more than 200 members. More detailed information and advice comes from the members of the Core Steering Group, which is composed as follows: Dr J.M. Baxter Scottish Natural Heritage R.J. Bleakley Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland R. Bradley The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales Dr J.P. Doody Joint Nature Conservation Committee B. Empson Environment Agency C. Gilbert Kent County Council & National Coasts and Estuaries Advisory Group N. Hailey English Nature Dr K. Hiscock Joint Nature Conservation Committee Prof. S.J. Lockwood Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences C.R. Macduff-Duncan Esso UK (on behalf of the UK Offshore Operators Association) Dr D.J. Murison Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment & Fisheries Department Dr H.J. Prosser Welsh Office Dr J.S. Pullen WWF UK (Worldwide Fund for Nature) Dr P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Walks Winter 2019
    Arun-Adur - Group walks Winter 2019 – 2020 Please check the website for latest information about walks or ring the leader if you are in any doubt about the walk going ahead: https://www.arun-adur-ramblers.org.uk Walk Grades: • Easy - walks for anyone who does not have a mobility difficulty, a specific health problem or is seriously unfit. Suitable for pushchairs if they can be lifted over occasional obstructions. Comfortable shoes or trainers can be worn. • Leisurely - walks for reasonably fit people with at least a little country walking experience. May include unsurfaced rural paths. Walking boots and warm, waterproof clothing are recommended. • Moderate - walks for people with country walking experience and a good level of fitness. May include some steep paths and open country, and may be at a brisk pace. Walking boots and warm, waterproof clothing are essential. • Strenuous - walks for experienced country walkers with an above average fitness level. May include hills and rough country, and may be at a brisk pace. Walking boots and warm, waterproof clothing are essential. People in doubt about their fitness should contact the organiser or leader in advance. Date Start Walk Distance Difficulty Contact Sat 10:30 Bramber 5.5mi/ Moderate Juliet, 05/10/2019 (BN44 3WE, Meet car park in Bramber village. 8.8km 07788 TQ187106) Walk via SDW, Goldings Barn, Windmill Hill, Bramber Castle. 1 steep hill 482696 OL Map 11 Registered assistance dogs only Wed 10:00 Burpham 5mi/ Moderate Martin Mc, 09/10/2019 (BN18 9RR, Meet: car park behind The George PH in Burpham. 8.1km 07580 TQ039088) Walk via Burpham village, Norfolk Clump and Wepham.
    [Show full text]
  • North Sea Checkpoint Data Adequacy Report - Marine Protected Areas
    Growth & Innovation in the Ocean Economy: North Sea Checkpoint Data Adequacy Report - Marine Protected Areas DLS0342-RT006-R02-00 August 2015 Growth & Innovation in the Ocean Economy: North Sea Checkpoint Data Adequacy Report - Marine Protected Areas Document information Document permissions Confidential - client Project number DLS0342 Project name Growth & Innovation in the Ocean Economy: North Sea Checkpoint Report title Data Adequacy Report - Marine Protected Areas Report number RT006 Release number R02-00 Report date August 2015 Client European Commission DG MARE Client representative Iain Shepherd Project manager Marie Pendle Project director Quillon Harpham Document history Date Release Prepared Approved Authorised Notes 07 Aug 2015 02-00 MEP MPN QKH Updates following client comments 01 May 2015 01-00 MEP MPN GBS Document authorisation Prepared Approved Authorised © HR Wallingford Ltd This report has been prepared for HR Wallingford’s client and not for any other person. Only our client should rely upon the contents of this report and any methods or results which are contained within it and then only for the purposes for which the report was originally prepared. We accept no liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person who has relied on the contents of this report, other than our client. This report may contain material or information obtained from other people. We accept no liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person, including our client, as a result of any error or inaccuracy in third party material or information which is included within this report. To the extent that this report contains information or material which is the output of general research it should not be relied upon by any person, including our client, for a specific purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Environmental Assessment 1
    Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group December 2019 Strategic Environmental Assessment for Scoping Report the Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Quality information Prepared by Checked by Approved by Jessica Playle Ryan Putt Nick Chisholm-Batten Graduate Environmental Associate Director Environmental Consultant Consultant Revision History Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position V1.0 16th December Initial draft version for 16th December Nick Chisholm- Associate 2019 Neighbourhood Group 2019 Batten Director comment V2.0 23rd December Consultation version 23rd December Nick Chisholm- Associate 2019 2019 Batten Director Prepared for: Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Prepared by: AECOM Limited Portwall Place Portwall Lane Bristol BS1 6NA United Kingdom aecom.com © 2019 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for use of Locality (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. Prepared for: Walberton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for Scoping Report the Walberton Neighbourhood
    [Show full text]
  • Coverage of Designated Sites in England by BTO Bird Monitoring Schemes: a Review to 2005
    BTO Research Report 429 Coverage of designated sites in England by BTO bird monitoring schemes: a review to 2005 Authors G.J. Conway, H.Q.P. Crick, R.J. Fuller, M. Handschuh, I.M.D. Maclean, J.H. Marchant, A.J. Musgrove, S.E. Newson, D.G. Noble, M.M. Rehfisch & R.M. Thewlis A report to English Nature January 2006 © British Trust for Ornithology and English Nature British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU Registered Charity No. 216652 CONTENTS Page No. List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures...................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Appendices............................................................................................................................... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 The concept of Common Standards Monitoring................................................................. 5 1.2 Common Standards Monitoring of English ornithological sites........................................ 5 1.3 The objectives of this report.................................................................................................. 7 2 HOW THIS REVIEW HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ........................................................... 9 2.1 Wetland Bird Survey ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]