DOCSLIB.ORG

WRMP19 SEA Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Water Resources Management Plan 2020 to 2080 Strategic Environment Assessment Environmental Report WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report April 2017 1. Background 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.3 Water resources management plan 2019 (WRMP19) 2 1.4 The purpose of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) 9 1.5 Scope of the SEA 10 1.6 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) 10 1.7 Marine conservation zone (MCZ) assessment 11 1.8 The Water Framework Directive 11 1.9 Structure of the environmental report 13 2. The SEA process 15 2.1 The SEA process 15 3. Relevant policies, plans and programmes 18 3.1 Review of plans, policies and programmes 18 3.2 A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment 20 3.3 Water Industry Strategic Environmental Requirements (WISER) 20 4. Consultation 21 4.1 The purpose of consultation 21 4.2 Pre-scoping and ongoing engagement 21 4.4 Scoping consultation 22 4.5 Consultation on the draft WRMP and Environmental Report 24 4.6 Future consultation 28 5. Key issues, constraints and opportunities 29 5.1 Baseline data and information collection methods 29 5.2 Population and human health 29 5.3 Material assets 33 5.4 Biodiversity, flora and fauna 36 5.5 Water 49 5.6 Climate change 67 5.7 Cultural heritage 69 5.8 Soils and geology 71 5.9 Ecosystem services 75 6. SEA scope and methodology 78 PAGE i WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report April 2017 6.1 Scope of likely significant effects 78 6.3 Proposed SEA objectives 83 6.4 Compatibility of SEA objectives 89 6.5 Method of assessment 90 6.6 Uncertainty and limitations 100 7. Environmental assessment of options and portfolios 101 7.1 Option alternatives 101 7.2 Option development and appraisal 102 7.3 Assessment of portfolios 111 7.4 Do minimum scenario 114 7.5 Scenario comparison 115 7.6 Drought selection 118 7.7 SEA model runs 119 7.8 Demand management (company level) 119 7.9 Sustainability reductions 119 7.10 Developing the WRMP 121 7.11 Ecosystems services assessment 131 7.12 Comparison of dWRMP preferred plan with preferred plan 134 7.13 Summary of reasons for selecting the preferred plan 136 8. Environmental assessment of the preferred plan 137 8.1 Preferred plan options 137 8.2 Components of the preferred plan 143 8.3 Overall preferred plan assessment against SEA objectives 147 8.4 Cumulative effects within the WRMP 164 8.5 Cumulative effects with neighbouring water company plans 174 8.6 Cumulative effects with other plans or programmes 177 8.7 Summary of WFD and designated sites assessments 179 9. Implementation and monitoring plan 183 9.1 Monitoring targets and indicators 183 9.2 Monitoring plan 183 9.3 Environmental action plan for implementation 184 10. Conclusions and summary 194 Glossary 199 PAGE ii WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report April 2017 List of Tables Table 1.1 Our 2015 to 2020 Restoring Sustainable Abstraction programme 6 Table 1.2 Our 2020 to 2025 restoring sustainable abstraction programme via WINEP 8 Table 1.3 INNS programme included within our 2020 to 2025 WINEP 12 Table 1.4 Structure of this environmental report 13 Table 3.1 Key PPP themes and objectives identified from review 18 Table 4.1 Key issues raised in the scoping consultation 22 Table 4.2 Key issues raised in the dWRMP19 consultation 25 Table 5.1 South East Water region human health indicators 30 Table 5.2 International and European wildlife designations* 37 Table 5.3 Key water-dependent priority habitats and species 40 Table 5.4 Freshwater fish types recorded in 2015 43 Table 5.5 INNS and impact on environmental resilience 46 Table 5.6 INNS programme included within our 2020 to 2025 WINEP 48 Table 5.7 ALS definition of water resource availability 52 Table 5.8 ALS definition of water resource availability (groundwater specific) 53 Table 5.9 Catchment water availability 55 Table 5.10 RBMP surface water quality 63 Table 5.11 RBMP groundwater quantitative status and quality status 65 Table 5.12 Links between SEA topics and ecosystem services 76 Table 6.1 Scope of likely significant effects 79 Table 6.2 Draft SEA objectives and proposed criteria 84 Table 6.3 Compatibility of SEA objective 89 Table 6.4 Standard mitigation measures 90 Table 6.5 Identifying the importance / sensitivity of the baseline 92 Table 6.6 Scale of effects 94 Table 7.1 Categorisation of water resource options 101 Table 7.2 Coarse screening results 105 Table 7.3 Fine screening results 107 Table 7.4 Summary of screening and input to modelling 109 Table 7.5 Baseline (i.e. ‘do minimum’ / ‘without Plan’) 115 Table 7.6 Modelled scenarios 117 Table 7.7 SEA objectives scenario comparison 122 Table 7.8 Ecosystem services least cost plan 131 Table 7.9 Ecosystems services preferred plan 132 Table 7.10 Key changes between options in the dWRMP and WRMP 134 Table 7.11 Plan alternative options 136 Table 8.1 Our revised preferred plan by water resource zone 137 Table 8.2 WRMP19 preferred plan by option type 138 PAGE iii WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report April 2017 Table 8.3 Assessment of leakage management and water efficiency measures to be implemented between 2020 and 2070 148 Table 8.4 Assessment of resource zone specific options 149 Table 8.5 Potential cumulative effects associated with pipeline installation and construction of new infrastructure 164 Table 8.6 In-combination effects on landscape receptors 168 Table 8.7 In combination effects on priority habitats 170 Table 8.8 In combination effects on ancient woodland and non-designated habitat types 171 Table 8.9 Potential in combination effects on landscape receptors 177 Table 8.10 SSSIs requiring further mitigation 181 Table 9.1 Monitoring plan 185 Table 9.2 Environmental action plan Including update on WRMP14 190 Table 10.1 Synergies between the Defra 25 year environment plan and our environmental resilience activities 197 Table 10.2 Synergies between the WISER expectations and our environmental resilience activities 198 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Map of SEW supply area Figure 2.1 Stages of SEA alongside WRMP19 development and HRA Figure 5.1 1 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 1 Figure 5.1 2 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 2 Figure 5.1 3 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 3 Figure 5.1 4 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 4 Figure 5.1 5 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 5 Figure 5.1 6 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 6 Figure 5.1 7 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 7 Figure 5.1 8 Population, cultural heritage and infrastructure context to WRMP options: water resource zone 8 Figure 5.2 1 Water context to WRMP options: water resource zone 1 Figure 5.2 2 Water context to WRMP options: water resource zone 2 Figure 5.2 3 Water context to WRMP options: water resource zone 3 Figure 5.2 4 Water context to WRMP options: water resource zone 4 PAGE iv WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report April 2017 Figure 5.2 5 Water context to WRMP options: water resource zone 5 Figure 5.2 6 Water context to WRMP options: water resource zone 6 Figure 5.2.7 Water context to WRMP options: water resource zone 7 Figure 5.2 8 Water context to WRMP options: Water Resource Zone 8 Figure 5.3 1 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 1 Figure 5.3 2 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 2 Figure 5.3 3 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 3 Figure 5.3 4 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 4 Figure 5.3 5 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 5 Figure 5.3 6 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 6 Figure 5.3 7 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 7 Figure 5.3 8 Landscape and biodiversity context To WRMP options: water resource zone 8 Figure 5.4 SSSI impact risk zones - western region Figure 5.5 SSSI impact risk zones - eastern region Figure 5.6 ALS surface and groundwater availability - eastern region Figure 5.7 ALS surface and groundwater availability - western region Figure 5.8 ALC grades – eastern region Figure 5.9 ALC grades – western region Figure 7.1 WRMP19 screening process Figure 8.1 Preferred plan options: western region Figure 8.2 Preferred plan options: eastern region Figure 8.3 Preferred plan and water environment Figure 8.4 Preferred plan and water environment Figure 8.5 Preferred plan and biodiversity and landscape constraints Figure 8.6 Preferred plan and biodiverstiy and landscape constraints List of Appendices A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA): screening assessment B Policy, programme and plan review C Water industry strategic environmental requirements (WISER) report D Marine conservation zone (MCZ) screening assessment E Summary assessment matrices F Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment G Sites of Special Scientific Interest screening assessment H Summary of draft Blueprint asks for PR19 and how these have been addressed in South East Water’s Business Plan I Water industry national environmental programme (WINEP) report PAGE v WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report April 2017 J Baseline and detailed option location plans PAGE vi Non-technical summary Introduction Water is an essential resource for our health and wellbeing as well as the environment.
Recommended publications
  • Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Annex 14: SEA Main Report

    Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Annex 14: SEA Main Report

    Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Annex 14: SEA Main Report Appendix A: Consultee responses to the scoping report and amendments made as a consequence November 30, 2017 Version 1 Appendix A Statement of Response Southern Water issued its Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Scoping Report for its Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 for public consultation from 28th April 2017 to 2nd June 2017. Comments on the SEA Scoping Report were received from the following organisations: Natural England Environment Agency Historic England Howard Taylor, Upstream Dry Fly Sussex Wildlife Trust The Test & Itchen Association Ltd Wessex Chalk Stream Rivers Trust Forestry Commission England Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Longdown Management Limited Amanda Barker-Mill C. H. Layman These comments are set out in Table 1 together with Southern Water’s response as to how it intends to take account of them in developing the SEA of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan. Table 1 Draft Water Resources Management Plan: SEA Scoping Report – responses to comments received How comments have been addressed in the Ref Consultee Comment Draft Water Resources Management Plan Environmental Report Plans programmes or policies I recommend you add the following to your list of plans programmes or policies: National. - Defra strategy for the environment creating a great place for These policies, plans and programmes have Natural living. been included in the SEA Environmental Report 1 England - The national conservation strategy conservation-21 and considered in the assessment of potential effects of the WRMP. - The 5 point plan to salmon conservation in the UK National Nature Reserve Management Plans (though you may not be able to, or need to, list all of these, please just reference them as a source of information for assessment of any relevant options).
  • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Sincs Hampshire.Pdf

    Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Sincs Hampshire.Pdf

    Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within Hampshire © Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre No part of this documentHBIC may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recoding or otherwise without the prior permission of the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Central Grid SINC Ref District SINC Name Ref. SINC Criteria Area (ha) BD0001 Basingstoke & Deane Straits Copse, St. Mary Bourne SU38905040 1A 2.14 BD0002 Basingstoke & Deane Lee's Wood SU39005080 1A 1.99 BD0003 Basingstoke & Deane Great Wallop Hill Copse SU39005200 1A/1B 21.07 BD0004 Basingstoke & Deane Hackwood Copse SU39504950 1A 11.74 BD0005 Basingstoke & Deane Stokehill Farm Down SU39605130 2A 4.02 BD0006 Basingstoke & Deane Juniper Rough SU39605289 2D 1.16 BD0007 Basingstoke & Deane Leafy Grove Copse SU39685080 1A 1.83 BD0008 Basingstoke & Deane Trinley Wood SU39804900 1A 6.58 BD0009 Basingstoke & Deane East Woodhay Down SU39806040 2A 29.57 BD0010 Basingstoke & Deane Ten Acre Brow (East) SU39965580 1A 0.55 BD0011 Basingstoke & Deane Berries Copse SU40106240 1A 2.93 BD0012 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood North SU40305590 1A 3.63 BD0013 Basingstoke & Deane The Oaks Grassland SU40405920 2A 1.12 BD0014 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood South SU40505520 1B 1.87 BD0015 Basingstoke & Deane West Of Codley Copse SU40505680 2D/6A 0.68 BD0016 Basingstoke & Deane Hitchen Copse SU40505850 1A 13.91 BD0017 Basingstoke & Deane Pilot Hill: Field To The South-East SU40505900 2A/6A 4.62
  • G Sites of Special Scientific Interest Screening Assessment

    G Sites of Special Scientific Interest Screening Assessment

    WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report G Sites of Special Scientific Interest screening assessment SSSIs considered Water dependent sites Sites within 2 km of option located downstream of Option types that require new Option name Sites within 200 m of new reservoir abstraction or Screening narrative Screening decision reference built infrastructure (i.e., pipeline or repair/amendments discharge points, or groundwater, reservoir to existing pipelines supported by target aquifer and water treatment works for groundwater options) abstractions Catchment management CGW-2 Catchment Management N/A None N/A No adverse impacts from water quality improvement No significant impacts likely. Interventions at actions Woodgarston CGW-3 Targeted catchment N/A Pembury Cutting and Pit [all N/A No adverse impacts from water quality improvement No significant impacts likely. management units at favourable condition] actions interventions in the Pembury area Water reuse EFF-35 Effluent reuse to River Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Proposed pipeline route runs adjacent to Lewes Brooks Measures to avoid significant effects on Lewes (plan Ouse: source – [100% of units at favourable or [100% of units at favourable [100% of units at favourable (no intersection with site) and in close proximity to Brooks and Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs SSSIs alternative Peacehaven (25Ml/d unfavourable – recovering or unfavourable – recovering or unfavourable – recovering Lewes Downs (minimum distance of approximately identified though SEA and recorded in option option) Option) condition] condition] condition] 200m), however no direct impacts and no drainage dossiers. For Lewes Downs this would include impacts anticipated. No significant effects likely either rerouting pipeline east of existing route via Lewes Brooks [93.6% of units at Lewes Brooks [93.6% of following implementation of standard mitigation.
  • Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004

    Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004

    CHILHAM: STOUR VALLEY Location map: CHILHAMCHARACTER AREA DESCRIPTION North of Bilting, the Stour Valley becomes increasingly enclosed. The rolling sides of the valley support large arable fields in the east, while sweeps of parkland belonging to Godmersham Park and Chilham Castle cover most of the western slopes. On either side of the valley, dense woodland dominate the skyline and a number of substantial shaws and plantations on the lower slopes reflect the importance of game cover in this area. On the valley bottom, the river is picked out in places by waterside alders and occasional willows. The railway line is obscured for much of its length by trees. STOUR VALLEY Chilham lies within the larger character area of the Stour Valley within the Kent Downs AONB. The Great Stour is the most easterly of the three rivers cutting through the Downs. Like the Darent and the Medway, it too provided an early access route into the heart of Kent and formed an ancient focus for settlement. Today the Stour Valley is highly valued for the quality of its landscape, especially by the considerable numbers of walkers who follow the Stour Valley Walk or the North Downs Way National Trail. Despite its proximity to both Canterbury and Ashford, the Stour Valley retains a strong rural identity. Enclosed by steep scarps on both sides, with dense woodlands on the upper slopes, the valley is dominated by intensively farmed arable fields interspersed by broad sweeps of mature parkland. Unusually, there are no electricity pylons cluttering the views across the valley. North of Bilting, the river flows through a narrow, pastoral floodplain, dotted with trees such as willow and alder and drained by small ditches.
  • The Landscape Assessment of Kent

    The Landscape Assessment of Kent

    The Landscape Assessment of Kent October 2004 Prepared for Kent County Council by Jacobs Babtie Kent County Council Invicta House County Hall Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX Tel: 01622 221537 Jacobs Babtie Miller House Lower Stone Street Maidstone Kent ME15 6GB Tel: 01622 666000 Produced with the financial support of the European Regional Development Fund Front cover photograph courtesy of Jason Mitchell EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kentish landscape has evolved over many hundreds of years. It has been created by the interaction of the natural environment and human activities, in particular the combination of physical, biological and cultural influences. Physical influences such as geology and landform, together with the overlying pattern of settlement and land use are key determinants of landscape character. The Landscape Assessment of Kent is a landscape character based study that draws together existing landscape character assessments of the county and updates them to conform to the current guidance. Additional work on the condition and sensitivity of the Kent landscape has been used to formulate character-based strategies to ensure the continued distinctiveness of the Kent landscape. It is intended that the Landscape Assessment of Kent will be used in a variety of forward planning strategies, in land management schemes and in planning control. The objective is to ensure that decisions on the rural landscape are underpinned by a robust and widely accepted assessment of the landscape character. The challenge is to find ways of identifying the important characteristics of the landscape that assist the process of accommodating change, where this is both desirable and practicable, whilst maintaining the links with the past and the natural environment.
  • Jul to Dec 2013

    Jul to Dec 2013

    Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Isle of Wight Branch Page 1 of 33 Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Saving butterflies, moths and our environment Isle of Wight Branch HOME ABOUT » EVENTS » CONSERVATION » SPECIES » SIGHTINGS » PUBLICATIONS » LINKS » ISLE OF WIGHT » MEMBERS » Wednesday 31st July Judith Frank reports from Byway stretch between Stockbridge and Broughton (SU337354) where the following observations were made: Holly Blue (2 "didn't settle long enough for me to be sure but seemed most likely to be hollies."), Peacock (1), Meadow Brown (2), Large White (9), Ringlet (9), Brimstone (1), Comma (2), Green-veined White (4), Gatekeeper (5). "On a day of only fleeting sunshine, I was interested to see what there might be on a section of byway through farmland not particularly managed for butterflies. A large patch of brambles yielded the most colour with the commas, gatekeepers and blues.". Speckled Wood Comma NT Owen reports from Roe Inclosure, Linwood (SU200086) where the following observations were made: Large White (2), Large Skipper (1), Gatekeeper (3), Small Skipper (1), Silver-washed Fritillary (4 "Including one Valezina form female"). Silver-washed Fritillary f. valezina Steve Benstead reports from Brading Down (SZ596867) where the following observations were made: Chalkhill Blue (5), Painted Lady (1), Clouded Yellow (1). "Overcast but warm". Gary palmer reports from barton common (SZ249931) where the following observations were made: Large White (2), Small White (3), Marbled White (3), Meadow Brown (20), Gatekeeper (35), Small Copper (1), Common Blue (1), vapourer moth (1 Larval "using poplar sapling"), peppered moth (1 Larval "using alder buckthorn"), buff tip moth (49 Larval "using mature sallow").
  • Joint Core Strategy Appendix I

    Joint Core Strategy Appendix I

    SA of Winchester’s Local Plan Part 1- Joint Core Strategy Appendix I Appendix I: Statement on Compliance with the SEA Directive & Regulations I.1 An outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan and relationship with other relevant plans: Section 1 of this SA Report sets out the contents and main objectives of the Core Strategy. The relationship with other relevant plans is summarised in Section 3 and Appendix IV of this report. I.2 The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan: Section 3 of this SA Report summarises the relevant baseline conditions for sustainability (including the state of relevant environmental aspects) in the District. Appendix III sets out this information in more detail. The likely evolution of current conditions (‘trends’) is detailed in Appendix III where available. I.3 The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected: Where relevant and available, information regarding particular areas has been included in Appendix III. I.4 Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance: Section 3 of this SA Report summarises existing sustainability problems (including environmental problems) for Winchester City Council’s District area. I.5 The environmental protection objectives relevant to the plan and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation: Appendix IV of this SA Report provides the summary of objectives for sustainability in the Winchester area (including environmental objectives), and the implications of these objectives for the LDF.
  • South Hampshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2017 - 2034)

    South Hampshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2017 - 2034)

    South Hampshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2017 - 2034) Adopted March 2017 (Updated July 2018) South Hampshire Green Infrastructure Strategy 2017 - 2034 Contents Figure i: South Hampshire part of the PUSH Sub-Region: ......................................................................... 1 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background and Purpose of the South Hampshire Green Infrastructure Strategy ........................... 2 1.2 The Benefits of a Green Infrastructure Approach ......................................................................... 5 2. Drivers for a strategic GI approach ................................................................................................... 12 2.1 National Planning Policy ........................................................................................................... 12 2.2 25 Year Environment Plan ........................................................................................................ 14 2.3 PUSH Spatial Position Statement 2016 ...................................................................................... 14 2.4 Solent, New Forest and River Itchen European Protected Sites ................................................... 17 2.5 Protected Landscapes .............................................................................................................. 19 3. A GI Strategy for South Hampshire ..................................................................................................
  • Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan

    Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan

    The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan A framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife Produced by Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group © Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, 1997 c/o Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX. Tel: (01622) 221537 CONTENTS 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN 1 1.1 Conserving Biodiversity 1 1.2 Why have a Kent Biodiversity Action Plan? 1 1.3 What is a Biodiversity Action Plan? 1.4 The approach taken to produce the Kent Plan 2 1.5 The Objectives of the Kent BAP 2 1.6 Rationale for selection of habitat groupings and individual species for plans 3 2. LINKS WITH OTHER INITIATIVES 7 2.1 Local Authorities and Local Agenda 21 7 2.2 English Nature's 'Natural Areas Strategy' 9 3. IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.1 The Role of Lead Agencies and Responsible Bodies 10 3.2 The Annual Reporting Process 11 3.3 Partnerships 11 3.4 Identifying Areas for Action 11 3.5 Methodology for Measuring Relative Biodiversity 11 3.6 Action Areas 13 3.7 Taking Action Locally 13 3.8 Summary 14 4. GENERIC ACTIONS 15 2.1 Policy 15 2.2 Land Management 16 2.3 Advice/Publicity 16 2.4 Monitoring and Research 16 5. HABITAT ACTION PLANS 17 3.1 Habitat Action Plan Framework 18 3.2 Habitat Action Plans 19 Woodland & Scrub 20 Wood-pasture & Historic Parkland 24 Old Orchards 27 Hedgerows 29 Lowland Farmland 32 Urban Habitats 35 Acid Grassland 38 Neutral & Marshy Grassland 40 Chalk Grassland 43 Heathland & Mire 46 Grazing Marsh 49 Reedbeds 52 Rivers & Streams 55 Standing Water (Ponds, ditches & dykes, saline lagoons, lakes & reservoirs) 58 Intertidal Mud & Sand 62 Saltmarsh 65 Sand Dunes 67 Vegetated Shingle 69 Maritime Cliffs 72 Marine Habitats 74 6.
  • Hollins-2010

    Hollins-2010

    WILDLIFE DIARY AND NEWS FOR DEC 27 - JAN 2 (WEEK 52 OF 2010) Highlights Red-throated Divers moving along the coast in exceptional numbers Shags have begun nesting and Cormorants are in breeding plumage There are more Bitterns at more sites in southern England than usual On Dec 31 a herd of maybe 100 Bewick's Swans blazed a trail across the Sussex skies from Worthing to Rye Bay - it must have been an impressive sight and sound but left no clue as to its origin or destination The White Tailed Sea Eagle which disappeared near Southampton Water on Dec 12 may well have re-appeared on Jan 1 in the Hordle (New Milton) area The Great Bustard first seen in the Portland/Weymouth area from Dec 23 to 27 has re-appeared in the Avon valley/Christchurch Harbour area from Dec 30 to Jan 1 Christmas entertainment by escaped birds was in the form of a singing Budgie on the Isle of Wight and a Golden Eagle in Sussex The Raven night roost in Dorset had 147 birds on Dec 31 and Dorset also has a single winter Dipper near Dorchester Two sightings of Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers in Hampshire show they are not extinct in the county and four reports of Great Spotted Woodpeckers drumming since Dec 14 shows they think spring has come - also showing that Tawny Owls are not yet extinct within the Havant builtup area was a sighting in a Netherfield Close garden BIRDS Red-throated Diver: From Dec 25 to Jan 1 very large numbers have been moving along the south coast (sometimes east, sometimes west).
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report, 2010

    Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report, 2010

    New Forest National Park Authority Park Management Plan HRA Habitat Regulations Assessment January 2010 New Forest National Park Authority New Forest National Park Authority – Park Management Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Revision Schedule Park Management Plan – HRA Report January 2010 Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 01 07/10/2009 HRA Report Dr Graeme Down Dr James Riley Dr James Riley Ecologist Principal Ecologist Principal Ecologist 02 18/12/09 Updated HRA Dr Graeme Down Dr James Riley Dr James Riley Report Ecologist Principal Ecologist Principal Ecologist 03 25/01/10 Final HRA Dr Graeme Down Dr James Riley Dr James Riley Report Ecologist Principal Ecologist Principal Ecologist Scott Wilson Scott House Alencon Link This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. Scott Wilson Basingstoke accepts no liability for any use of this document other than for the purposes for which it Hampshire was prepared and provided. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a RG21 7PP whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion. © Scott Wilson Ltd 2009 Tel 01256 310200 Fax 01256 310201 New Forest National Park Authority – Park Management Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
  • Habitats Regulation Assessment Screening Report

    Habitats Regulation Assessment Screening Report

    Eastleigh Borough Council Issues and Options Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report November 2015 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 5 1.1 Legislation ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 This Report ..................................................................................................................... 5 2 Methodology .................................................................................... 7 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 A Proportionate Assessment .......................................................................................... 7 2.3 The Process of HRA ....................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Evidence gathering ......................................................................................................... 9 Physical scope of the HRA ............................................................................................................ 10 2.5 Task 1: Likely Significant Effects (Screening) ............................................................... 11 Other plans and projects ................................................................................................................ 11 3 Pathways