DOCSLIB.ORG

The Humber Estuary European Marine Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE HUMBER ESTUARY EUROPEAN MARINE SITE comprising: Humber Estuary possible Special Area of Conservation Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Special Protection Area & potential Special Protection Area Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Ramsar Site & proposed Ramsar Site English Nature¶s advice given under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 INTERIM ADVICE APRIL 2003 Interim advice issued April 2003 English Nature¶s advice for the Humber Estuary European marine site given under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 Preface This document provides English Nature¶s advice to other relevant authorities as to (a) the conservation objectives and (b) any operations which may cause deterioration of natural habitats or the habitats of species, or disturbance of species for the Humber Estuary European marine site. This advice is being prepared to fulfil our obligations under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. European sites include Special Areas of Conservation (designated under the Habitats Directive, which support certain natural habitats and species of European importance) and Special Protection Areas (classified under the Birds Directive which support significant numbers of internationally important wild birds). Ramsar sites support internationally important wetlands and wetland species (listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat). In accordance with DETR'si Planning Policy Guidance (PPG9) and the DETR statement Ramsar Sites in England (November 2000); Ramsar sites must be given the same consideration as European sites when considering plans and projects that may affect them. European marine sites are defined in the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 as any part of a European site covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters or any part of the sea in or adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limit of territorial waters. The Humber Estuary European marine site comprises a possible Special Area of Conservation ± the Humber Estuary; a Special Protection Area and Ramsar site - Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Phase 1 (classified in July 1994) and a potential Special Protection Area and proposed Ramsar site - Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Phase 2 (yet to be classified). Although parts of these European sites have not yet been formally designated, it has been agreed by the relevant authorities that this Regulation 33 advice will be progressed for the pSAC, pSPA and pRamsar, as well as for the designated areas. Our advice within this document will cover the marine elements of all of these sites. This µRegulation 33 package¶ is structured to help relevant and competent authorities, who have responsibilities on and around the Humber, to implement the Habitats Directive, and to: · understand the international importance of the site, underlying physical processes and the ecological requirements of the habitats and species involved; · advise relevant authorities as to the conservation objectives for the site and operations which may cause deterioration and disturbance; · set the standards against which the condition of the site¶s interest features can be determined and undertake compliance monitoring to establish whether they are in favourable condition; and · develop, if deemed necessary, a management scheme to ensure that the features are maintained. In addition, the Regulation 33 package will provide a basis to inform on the scope and nature of µappropriate assessments¶ required in relation to plans and projects (Regulations 48 & 50 and by English Nature under Regulation 20). English Nature will also provide more detailed advice to competent and relevant authorities to assess the implications of any given plan or project under the Regulations, where appropriate, at the time a plan or project is being considered. The designations on the Humber Estuary are currently under review by English Nature. This Regulation 33 advice will be updated in the future to reflect any subsequent changes to the boundaries or the features of the Humber Estuary European marine site. Richard Leafe, General Manager English Nature, September 2002 i Now DEFRA i Interim advice issued April 2003 Acknowledgements English Nature would like to thank all the organisations and individuals who have assisted in the development of this Regulation 33 advice package, in particular: Peter Barham ABP Peter J Cook BSBI Recorder Julie Eaton DEFRA Tony Edwards Environment Agency Richard Freestone Environment Agency Judith Stoutt ESFJC Ray Eades Humber Advisory Group Andrew Grieve Humber Advisory Group Walter Houlton Humber Advisory Group Mike Sleight Humber Advisory Group Emma Giles Humber Project Officer Nick Cutts IECS Paul Jackson Lower Ouse Internal Drainage Board Lionel Grooby LWT Giles Bartlett NESFC Squadron Leader Neil Jones RAF Donna Nook Nicola Melville RSPB Ian Higginson RSPB Humber Reserves Area Manager Professor Boyd Sea Mammal Research Unit Josephine Clarke WDCS Ali Champion WWF-UK Will Kemp Yorkshire and Humber Assembly Alice Owen Yorkshire Forward In addition, the members of the Humber Estuary European marine site management group and advisory group, and those people attending the exposure score workshop. ii Interim advice issued April 2003 Contents PREFACE ..............................................................................................................................................I INTRODUCTORY SECTIONS...........................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION TO REGULATION 33 ADVICE..................................................................2 1.1 NATURA 2000..........................................................................................................................2 1.2 ENGLISH NATURE¶S ROLE.........................................................................................................3 1.3 THE ROLE OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................3 1.4 ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES...................................................3 1.5 RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER OTHER CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS...............................................4 1.6 ROLE OF CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................4 1.7 ROLE OF ADVICE ON OPERATIONS .............................................................................................4 1.8 EUROPEAN SITES ......................................................................................................................4 1.9 PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE .....................................................................................................5 2. IDENTIFICATION OF INTEREST FEATURES UNDER THE EU HABITATS AND BIRDS DIRECTIVES AND THE CONVENTION ON WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE ....................................................................................................................................6 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................6 2.2 INTEREST FEATURES UNDER THE EU HABITATS DIRECTIVE .......................................................8 2.3 INTEREST FEATURES UNDER THE EU BIRDS DIRECTIVE .............................................................8 2.4 CRITERION UNDER THE RAMSAR CONVENTION ON WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE ESPECIALLY AS WATERFOWL HABITAT ................................................................................................9 2.5 OTHER QUALIFYING FEATURES OR FEATURES OF INTEREST WITHIN THE SAC, SPA AND RAMSAR DESIGNATIONS OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN MARINE SITE...........................................................................9 2.5.1 Humber Estuary pSAC.....................................................................................................9 2.5.2 Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA . .......................................................................10 2.5.3 Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Ramsar site. ............................................................10 3. BACKGROUND TO FAVOURABLE CONDITION TABLE .........................................................12 4. ADVICE ON OPERATIONS .....................................................................................................14 4.1 PURPOSE OF ADVICE...............................................................................................................14 4.2 METHODS FOR ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................14 4.2.1 Sensitivity assessment ....................................................................................................14 4.2.2 Exposure assessment .....................................................................................................15 4.2.3 Vulnerability assessment................................................................................................15 4.3 FORMAT OF ADVICE................................................................................................................15 4.4 UPDATE AND REVIEW OF ADVICE ............................................................................................16 4.5 SUMMARY OF ADVICE ON OPERATIONS FOR THE SAC, SPA AND RAMSAR INTEREST FEATURES 16 4.6 PLANS AND
Recommended publications
  • Feasibility Study – Final Report

    Feasibility Study – Final Report

    RADAR IN-FILL FOR GREATER WASH AREA Feasibility Study – Final Report CONTRACT NUMBER: ED02698 URN NUMBER: 07/1442 COWRIE INFILL-02-2007 Radar In-fill for Greater Wash Area Feasibility Study - Final Report David J Bannister 31 August 2007 This report has been commissioned by COWRIE Ltd © COWRIE Ltd, 2007 Published by COWRIE Ltd. This publication (excluding the logos) may be re-used free of charge in any format or medium. It may only be re-used accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as COWRIE Ltd copyright and use of it must give the title of the source publication. Where third party copyright material has been identified, further use of that material requires permission from the copyright holders concerned. ISBN: 978-0-9554279-6-1 Bannister, D.J.(2007) Radar In-fill for Greater Wash Area Feasibility Study. (QinetiQ Report No. ED02698) Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd. and BERR (INFILL-02-07). Copies available from: www.offshorewind.co.uk E-mail: [email protected] Contact details: QinetiQ Ltd. Malvern Technology Centre, Malvern, Worcestershire WR14 3PS United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1684 894000 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.qinetiq.com Greater Wash In-fill Radar Feasibility Study – Final Report Table of Contents Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. III LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ IV TABLE OF TABLES .......................................................................................................
  • 2019 Annual Report Are Commission-Free

    2019 Annual Report Are Commission-Free

    Table of Contents 1 Letter to Our Shareholders 4 Financial Highlights 6 Our Businesses Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties 7 Our Value Chain 8 Our Strategy Operating Excellence Growth Returns Distributions High-Performing Organization 28 Board of Directors 30 Executive Leadership Team 31 Non-GAAP Reconciliations 32 Form 10-K | ON THE COVER AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake Charles Refinery WESTLAKE, LA In 2019, Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex achieved a sustained safety record of more than 55 months, equivalent to 7.5 million safe work hours. 2019 PHILLIPS 66 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To Our Shareholders We have the right strategy in place to create shareholder value, and our employees are executing it well. Phillips 66 achieved 34% total shareholder return during 2019, which exceeded our peer group average and the S&P 100. In 2019, we delivered earnings of $3.1 billion and earnings per share of $6.77. Adjusted earnings were $3.7 billion or $8.05 per share. During the year, we generated $4.8 billion of operating cash flow. We reinvested $3.9 billionback into the business and returned $3.2 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We increased our quarterly dividend 12.5% and announced a $3 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Since our formation, we have returned $26 billion to shareholders through dividends, share repurchases and exchanges, reducing our initial shares outstanding by 33%. Operating excellence is our No. 1 priority and core to everything we do. Our goal is zero incidents, zero accidents and zero injuries. We believe this is attainable, and we strive for it daily.
  • 2020 Fact Book 2 Our Businesses Our Strategy Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties Energy Research & Innovation Global Asset Map General Information

    2020 Fact Book 2 Our Businesses Our Strategy Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties Energy Research & Innovation Global Asset Map General Information

    Cover Photo: Taft Storage Facility at Gray Oak Pipeline TAFT, TX Contents 3 4 5 OUR BUSINESSES OUR STRATEGY MIDSTREAM Ferndale Ferndale Rail Terminal* Renton North Spokane Tacoma (MT) Yellowstone Cut Bank Moses Lake Thompson 17Falls Rail 24 14 Spokane Terminal Palermo* UROPE DLE EA Portland D Great Falls E I ST Portland (MT) Missoula Rail Terminal M Yello Glacier Sacagawea* Missoula wsto Helena Roundup Keene CDP* ne Billings Crude* Bozeman Billings Billings Humber SPCo & S-Chem ooth Sheridan* Semino Bakk Beart en Bayway MiRO CHEMICALS REFINING * MARKETING AND SPECIALTIES Bighorn e* Linden* Q-Chem I & II Casper* Tremley Pt. (MT)* * Po Rock Springs wd Bayway Rail eminoe er Ri Terminal* S Harbor Red Line Oil North Salt Lake Pioneer ve Des Moines s r Sacramento Rockies Expr Hartford Lincoln ess Line 20 ess Richmond (MT) Rockies Expr San Francisco Denver Borg Conway Kansas City* Po 0 Rockies Expres to Wichita wd Paola er-Den Gold Line* Wood River er Riv Wichita N.* Products* HeartlandPaola* Blue Line 0 Wichita S.* E. St. ver Jeerson City* Junction er Louis* Southern Hills* m Cherokee North* r*Hartford* Line 30 re Line 40 ol Standish* La Junta * h Ponca City* Explo his Ponca City ld Line C Crude* Go 0 Los Angeles Medford* eeMount Vernon* ok t Los Angeles Borger CherEas Torrance Cherokee Colton Borger to Amarillo* Blue LineSouth* Glenpool* Ponca Selmer Line O* * CushPo* Albuquerque* K PL Sk AC ATA Line* elly ST Cushing City SA Oklahoma City* Amarillo* -Belvieu Los Angeles AL Borger Oklahoma Crude* * Explor Wichita Falls* Lubbock* Savannah North
  • U DDBA Papers of the Barnards Family 1401-1945 of South Cave

    U DDBA Papers of the Barnards Family 1401-1945 of South Cave

    Hull History Centre: Papers of the Barnards Family of South Cave U DDBA Papers of the Barnards Family 1401-1945 of South Cave Historical background: The papers relate to the branch of the family headed by Leuyns Boldero Barnard who began building up a landed estate centred on South Cave in the mid-eighteenth century. His inherited ancestry can be traced back to William and Elizabeth Barnard in the late sixteenth century. Their son, William Barnard, became mayor of Hull and died in 1614. Of his seven sons, two of them also served time as mayor of Hull, including the sixth son, Henry Barnard (d.1661), through whose direct descendants Leuyns Boldero Barnard was eventually destined to succeed. Henry Barnard, married Frances Spurrier and together had a son and a daughter. His daughter, Frances, married William Thompson MP of Humbleton and his son, Edward Barnard, who lived at North Dalton, was recorder of Hull and Beverley from the early 1660s until 1686 when he died. He and his wife Margaret, who was also from the Thompson family, had at least seven children, the eldest of whom, Edward Barnard (d.1714), had five children some of whom died without issue and some had only female heirs. The second son, William Barnard (d.1718) married Mary Perrot, the daughter of a York alderman, but had no children. The third son, Henry Barnard (will at U DDBA/14/3), married Eleanor Lowther, but he also died, in 1769 at the age of 94, without issue. From the death of Henry Barnard in 1769 the family inheritance moved laterally.
  • Long-Term Prospects for Northwest European Refining

    Long-Term Prospects for Northwest European Refining

    LONG-TERM PROSPECTS FOR NORTHWEST EUROPEAN REFINING ASYMMETRIC CHANGE: A LOOMING GOVERNMENT DILEMMA? ROBBERT VAN DEN BERGH MICHIEL NIVARD MAURITS KREIJKES CIEP PAPER 2016 | 01 CIEP is affiliated to the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. CIEP acts as an independent forum for governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, media, politicians and all others interested in changes and developments in the energy sector. CIEP organizes lectures, seminars, conferences and roundtable discussions. In addition, CIEP members of staff lecture in a variety of courses and training programmes. CIEP’s research, training and activities focus on two themes: • European energy market developments and policy-making; • Geopolitics of energy policy-making and energy markets CIEP is endorsed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, BP Europe SE- BP Nederland, Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. ('Rabobank'), Delta N.V., ENGIE Energie Nederland N.V., ENGIE E&P Nederland B.V., Eneco Holding N.V., EBN B.V., Essent N.V., Esso Nederland B.V., GasTerra B.V., N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, Heerema Marine Contractors Nederland B.V., ING Commercial Banking, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V., N.V. NUON Energy, TenneT TSO B.V., Oranje-Nassau Energie B.V., Havenbedrijf Rotterdam N.V., Shell Nederland B.V., TAQA Energy B.V.,Total E&P Nederland B.V., Koninklijke Vopak N.V. and Wintershall Nederland B.V. CIEP Energy
  • Consolidated Income Statement

    Consolidated Income Statement

    CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT Millions of Dollars 2011 2012 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD Revenues and Other Income Sales and other operating revenues* 56,530 65,627 62,784 59,872 244,813 56,132 56,132 Equity in earnings of affiliates 1,017 1,160 1,298 602 4,077 1,220 1,220 Gain on dispositions 616 78 (480) 1,793 2,007 942 942 Other income 84 96 27 122 329 60 60 Total Revenues and Other Income 58,247 66,961 63,629 62,389 251,226 58,354 58,354 Costs and Expenses Purchased crude oil, natural gas and products 42,376 50,133 47,597 45,761 185,867 41,889 41,889 Production and operating expenses 2,628 2,606 2,768 2,768 10,770 2,696 2,696 Selling, general and administrative expenses 499 514 466 599 2,078 685 685 Exploration expenses 176 264 266 360 1,066 679 679 Depreciation, depletion and amortization 2,070 2,075 1,870 1,919 7,934 1,838 1,838 Impairments - 2 486 304 792 259 259 Taxes other than income taxes* 4,364 4,830 4,579 4,534 18,307 4,521 4,521 Accretion on discounted liabilities 112 115 114 114 455 114 114 Interest and debt expense 262 247 235 228 972 209 209 Foreign currency transaction (gains) losses (36) (17) 68 (31) (16) (11) (11) Total Costs and Expenses 52,451 60,769 58,449 56,556 228,225 52,879 52,879 Income before income taxes 5,796 6,192 5,180 5,833 23,001 5,475 5,475 Provision for income taxes 2,754 2,773 2,549 2,423 10,499 2,520 2,520 Net Income 3,042 3,419 2,631 3,410 12,502 2,955 2,955 Less: net income attributable to noncontrolling interests (14) (17) (15) (20) (66) (18) (18) Net
  • Case Study on Co2 Transport Pipeline Network Design for Humber Region in the Uk

    Case Study on Co2 Transport Pipeline Network Design for Humber Region in the Uk

    CASE STUDY ON CO2 TRANSPORT PIPELINE NETWORK DESIGN FOR HUMBER REGION IN THE UK Tihomir Lazica, Eni Okoa,b and Meihong Wanga,b,* aProcess Systems Engineering Group, School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK bSchool of Engineering, University of Hull, HU6 7RX, UK *Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1482 466688. E-mail address: [email protected] ABSTRACT Reliable, safe and economic CO2 transport from CO2 capture points to long term storage/enhanced oil recovery (EOR) sites is critical for commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Pipeline transportation of CO2 is considered most feasible. However, in CCS applications there is concern about associated impurities and huge volumes of high pressure CO2 transported over distances likely to be densely populated areas. On this basis, there is limited experience for design and economic assessment of CO2 pipeline. The Humber region in the UK is a likely site for building CO2 pipelines in the future due to large CO2 emissions in the region and its close access to depleted gas fields and saline aquifers beneath the North Sea. In this paper, various issues to be considered in CO2 pipeline design for CCS applications are discussed. Also, different techno- economic correlations for CO2 pipelines are assessed using the Humber region as case study. Levelized cost of CO2 pipelines calculated for the region range from 0.14 to 0.75 GBP per tonne of CO2. This is a preliminary study and is useful for obtaining quick techno-economic assessment of CO2
  • The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity

    The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity

    Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity 03 Business Location Guide Contents Contents Contents 03 The Low Carbon Investment Opportunity 04 The UK Low Carbon Market Opportunity 06 The Low Carbon Industrial Investment Opportunity 08 The Circular Economy Investment Opportunity 10 The Offshore Renewable Energy Investment Opportunity 12 Low Carbon & Related Industry Clusters 14 Low Carbon Knowledge, Research & Technologies 16 Workforce, Education & Skills for Low Carbon Sectors 18 Industrial Sites & Property Solutions 26 Humber Freeport Sites & Benefits28 Ports & Logistics Infrastructure 30 Fast UK & Global Market Access 32 Greater Lincolnshire’s Location & Connectivity 34 UK Market Access 35 Support for Your Low Carbon Sector Business Investment 36 Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity 04 Greater Lincolnshire UK The Low Carbon Energy & Industry Investment Opportunity 05 Business Location Guide Business Location Guide Growth opportunities aligned with Greater ambitious UK sustainability goals Lincolnshire UK: UK-leading industry clusters The Low Carbon in Low Carbon energy and industrial sectors Investment Building on established strengths in energy generation, energy-intensive industries, and port logistics, including within the Humber Energy Advanced Low Carbon research, Estuary, the area is home to the UK’s most Opportunity ambitious Industrial Decarbonisation project, a innovation
  • Acrobat Distiller, Job 2

    Acrobat Distiller, Job 2

    5. Amphibians and reptiles Common toad Bufo bufo Key Sites: Saltfleetby - Theddlethorpe NNR (TF 470 910). Summary Status: • Wildlife and Countryside Act: Schedule 5, Section 9 (5). • Habitats Directive: not listed. • Berne Convention: not listed. • Red Data Book: not listed. • Breeding Status in the Humber: Breeding. • Widespread and common or abundant. Description The common toad Bufo bufo is a widespread amphibian found throughout Britain although this species is absent from Ireland. They are generally brown, grey or dirty green and have the ability to lighten or darken their skin depending on environmental conditions. Their skin is covered in warts which secrete a toxic substance when the toad is seriously threatened. Like most toad species the common toad has short stubby legs. It therefore moves in a series of short hops rather than the large leaps taken by the common frog (Beebee & Griffiths 2000). The common toad tends to avoid grazed pasture, improved grassland, arable fields, heathland and moorlands in favour of rough grassland, scrub and open woodland. Large permanent water bodies with a good cover of emergent and submerged vegetation are preferred. Unlike other British amphibian species, they are able to inhabit ponds, which support fish, due to the unpalatability of common toad tadpoles (Beebee & Griffiths 2000). Common toads feed primarily on ground dwelling arthropods such as ants (family Formicidae), beetles (order Coleoptera), spiders (order Araneae) and earwigs (order Dermaptera), although slower moving items such as earthworms (Class Oligochaeta), and gastropods such as slugs and snails are also taken (Gittins 1987 in Beebee & Griffiths 2000). Distribution within the Humber As in many kinds of species survey, the observed distribution of records will reflect differences in recording effort as well as the real distribution of a species.
  • Explosion at the Conoco Humber Refinery – 16Th April 2001

    Explosion at the Conoco Humber Refinery – 16Th April 2001

    SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 151 # 2006 Crown Copyright EXPLOSION AT THE CONOCO HUMBER REFINERY – 16TH APRIL 2001 Jonathan Carter, Peter Dawson and Robert Nixon Health and Safety Executive, Hazardous Installations Directorate # Crown Copyright 2006. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland An explosion and fire occurred at the Conoco Humber Refinery on 16th April 2001, following the catastrophic failure of a 600 overhead pipe from a de-ethaniser column on the Saturate Gas Plant. Investigation revealed that the failure of the pipe was due to internal corrosion that had not been identified by the refinery pipework inspection regime. The paper describes the event and the emergency response. It also examines the immediate cause of the event, and how failures of the management of pipework inspection and management of change failed to prevent the accident occurring. The paper concludes with the lessons that can be learned from this event. THE REFINERY The Humber Refinery is located on the south bank of the estuary of the River Humber on the east coast of England, approximately 1.5 km north-west of the town of Immingham and 0.5 km east of the village of Killingholme. In 2001 Conoco Ltd owned the refinery. In August 2002 Conoco merged to form ConocoPhillips Ltd., the current owners of the refinery. The refinery was constructed between 1966 and 1969 and commissioned in 1970. The current capacity of the refinery is about 225,00 US barrels per day of crude oil, or about 11.4 million tonne per year.
  • Part 1 Rea Ch Classifica Tion

    Part 1 Rea Ch Classifica Tion

    RIVER QUALITY SURVEY NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY NORTHUMBRIA & YORKSHIRE REGION GQA ASSESSMENT 1994 PART 1 REA CH CLASSIFICA TION FRESHWATER RIVERS AND CANALS VERSION 1: AUGUST 1995 GQA ASSESSMENT 1994 \ NORTHUMBRIA & YORKSHIRE REGION To allow the development of a National method of evaluating water quality, the rivers in all the NRA regions of England and Wales have been divided into reaches, which are numbered using a coding system based on the hydrological reference for each river basin. Each classified reach then has a chemistry sample point assigned to it and these sample points are regularly monitored for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Dissolved oxygen (DO) and Total Ammonia. The summary statistics calculated from the results of this sampling are sent to a National Centre where the GQA Grades are calculated. A National report is produced and each region can then produce more detailed reports on the quality of their own rivers. For Northumbria and Yorkshire Region, this Regional Report has been divided into two parts. PARTI: REACH CLASSIFICATION This report contains a listing of the river reaches within the region, with their start and finish grid reference, approximate length, and the 1990 and 1994 GQA class for each reach. The reference code of the chemistry sample point used to classify the reach is also included. A sample point may classify several reaches if there are no major discharges or tributaries dividing those reaches. The sample point used to classify a reach may change and the classification is therefore calculated using the summary statistics for each sample point that has been used over the past three years.
  • 1622-Humber Consult Doc.Indd

    1622-Humber Consult Doc.Indd

    The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy Consultation Document August 2005 planning for the rising tides Key issues Strategy objectives Key issues affecting the Sea level rise Impact of realigning defences Overall objectives Sea levels in the estuary are Maintaining or moving defences 1. To develop a coherent and • sustainable, taking into 2. To ensure that all proposals are: need for and scope of a expected to rise relative to the land in the middle or outer parts of the realistic plan for the estuary’s account future changes in the • compatible with natural estuary at an average rate of 6 mm per year estuary (seaward of the Humber flood defences that is: environment (human, built or strategy include: processes; over the next 50 years (and possibly Bridge) will have little effect on natural), in sea levels or in the • compatible with natural estuary at a higher rate subsequently). overall estuary processes or on the climate. • technically feasible; Condition and standard of processes; defences elsewhere, however doing defences Loss of inter-tidal habitat • economically viable; so further landward could affect • compatible with adjacent Although the existing defences are As sea levels rise the presence of water levels. developments, including • environmentally appropriate; and in reasonable condition and provide a system of defences around the preferred options for adjoining an adequate standard of protection, estuary will result in the loss of Creating flood storage • socially acceptable. lengths of frontage; and both the condition and the standard about 600 ha of inter-tidal habitat Creating flood storage landward will reduce with time through due to coastal squeeze.