DOCSLIB.ORG

How the Loddon Catchment Floods • a Summary of Our Best Information and an Opportunity to Share It with You All

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How the Loddon Catchment Floods • a Summary of Our Best Information and an Opportunity to Share It with You All How the Loddon catchment floods • A summary of our best information and an opportunity to share it with you all. • Reach agreement on what the challenges are. • Discuss ways of working that provide multiple benefits. • Provide a platform for working together on shared solutions. 1. Summary of Catchment Overview of the River Loddon and its tributaries Catchment characteristics: Area, River length Geology, Standard Percentage Runoff (SPR), Landuse and critical infrastructure Flood Alert and warning areas Catchment Response to Rainfall Historic flooding Past experiences The Loddon and it’s tributaries • The Loddon is approx. 45 km long. • It originates from the chalk of the Hampshire Downs at Basingstoke. • It is fed from Groundwater springs. • The major Loddon tributaries are The River Hart, Blackwater, Whitewater and Emm Brook. • It joins the Thames West of Wargrave, downstream of Shiplake Lock. • Flood storage at Cove Brook and some attenuation in the gravel pits in the Blackwater Valley which take runoff from new developments. Catchment Geology Standard % Run Off (SPR) Urban and Riparian Reading Wokingham Bracknell Crowthorne Sandhurst Camberley Frimley Farnborough Fleet Basingstoke Aldershot Critical Infrastructure Six Flood Alert Areas 15 Flood Warning Areas Rainfall needed to cross threshold for varying SMDs Alert criteria: 10-15mm on a wet catchment; 30mm + on a dry catchment Warning criteria: 20-60mm on a wet catchment; Rarely exceeds Flood Warning when catchment is dry Sources/types of flooding Groundwater – e.g. Basingstoke 2000/01 Surface Water – e.g. Winnersh, Wokingham 2007 Fluvial – e.g. Lower Loddon 2013/14 Types of events • July 2007 – Summer, high intensity storms, relatively short durations. • Winter 2013/14 – Long duration, conveyor belt of active weather systems caused saturated ground. Chineham Chineham, Basingstoke – Upper Loddon – July 2007 Chineham, Basingstoke – Upper Loddon – Winter 2013/14 Chineham, Basingstoke – Upper Loddon July 2007 level = 1.3 mASD, flow = 2.9 m³/s Dec 2013 level = 0.8 mASD, flow = 1.1 m³/s July 2007 event – 54mm in 15hrs Winter 2013/14 – 52mm in 19hrs • July 2007 was largest on record at this site. • Winter 2013/14 was 4th largest on record. Tongham Tongham, Aldershot – River Blackwater – July 2007 Tongham, Aldershot – River Blackwater – Winter 2013/14 Tongham, Aldershot – River Blackwater July 2007 level = 1.8mASD, flow = 2.5 m³/s Dec 2013 level = 1.6mASD, flow = 1.9 m³/s July 2007 event – 52mm in 14hrs Winter 2013/14 – 38mm in 20hrs There is a small difference in actual levels between bankfull and property flooding. Lodge Farm Lodge Farm, River Whitewater – July 2007 Lodge Farm, River Whitewater – Winter 2013/14 Lodge Farm, River Whitewater – Winter 2013/14 Lodge Farm, River Whitewater – July 2007 July 2007 level = 0.6mASD, flow = 3.3 m³/s Dec 2013 level = 0.5mASD, flow = 2.2 m³/s July 2007 event – 52mm in 14hrs Winter 2013/14 – approx 370mm over 6 weeks July 2007 highest on record Winter 2013/14 2nd and 3rd highest on record Lodge Farm, River Whitewater – July 2007 Levels at lodge farm are affected by a sluice gate just upstream, which is operated by the pub owner (used to be a mill). This can result in a surge of flow moving downstream. Basingstoke canal can heavily overtop into the river here at times of high flows Sindlesham Mill Sindlesham, Lower Loddon – July 2007 Sindlesham, Lower Loddon – Winter 2013/14 Sindlesham, Lower Loddon July 2007 level = 1.5mASD Feb 2014 level = 1.2mASD July 2007 event – 54mm in 15hrs Winter 2013/14 – 58mm in 46hrs July 2007 highest on record Winter 2013/14 8th highest on record Sindlesham Mill Loddon Bridge Park & Ride, Cinema Winnersh Garden Centre and the George Pub (DS) of Sindlesham Mill Wokingham, Emm Brook – July 2007 Wokingham, Emm Brook – Winter 2013/14 Wokingham, Emm Brook July 2007 level = 2.3mASD, flow = 11 m³/s Feb 2014 level = 1.6mASD, flow = 4 m³/s July 2007 event – 54mm in 15hrs Winter 2013/14 – 122mm over 2 weeks July 2007 highest on record Winter 2013/14 3rd highest on record Twyford Twyford, Lower Loddon – July 2007 Twyford, Lower Loddon – Winter 2013/14 Twyford, Lower Loddon July 2007 level = 2.8mASD, flow approx (50-70 m³/s) – some bypassing of the gauge at high flows causes uncertainty in estimates Feb 2014 level = 3.1mASD, flow approx (75+ m³/s) July 2007 event – 62mm in 8hrs Winter 2013/14 – approx 300mm over 6 weeks It is also common for high Thames levels to ‘back up’ the River Loddon, delaying its peak to produce even more protracted flood conditions in the lower reaches. Swallowfield – full record back to 1987, one of the longest records we have for the Loddon Historic Flooding Date Details of Flooding Winter 2013- 6 Reported 2014 July 2007 131 properties 2006 59 properties (10 Farnham, 34 Alderhot, 15 Ash Vale) January 2003 12 properties flooded in Loddon Drive November 2000 7 properties unsubstantiated October 2000 2 properties flooded 17 properties unsubstantiated December 1999 2 properties flooded 1998 2 properties flooded February 1990 3 properties flooded Gardens of 30 properties Wokingham Aldershot Whitewater road run off 2007 (top left) Blackwater Frimley 2007 (top right) Blackwater Eversley 2007 (bottom right) Arborfield 2007 (road photo 2011) 2007 flooding The Emm Brook flooded in July 2007 when approximately 90 properties flooded in Wokingham. A further 100 were surrounded by floodwater. The Blackwater and Cove Brook catchment also flooded in 2007 affecting the areas of Farnborough, Aldershot, Ash, Ash Vale and Cove. Winter 2013-2014 Early Jan 2014 Six reported properties:- -1 in Arborfield -1 at Twyford/Wargrave area, -1 at Aldershot, -1 at Farnborough -2 at Crookham. -The Winnersh park and ride site was closed for the majority of the flood event (Dec – Feb) -The Winnersh garden centre in the Lower River Loddon alert area flooded on several occasions. -Also looks like Twyford reached its highest recorded level in February! Progress – the story so far Owen Peat - 2007 event Lindsey Newton 2009 – legal context Angela Gunnel (QMUL) 2011 – woods in rivers QMUL 2014 – 2 MSc dissertations - Flood risk and work in Blackwater Valley (Farnham Quarry) - Managing fallen trees Ongoing & completed projects Water Framework Directive & Flood Risk: working together, making space for water, working with natural process Flood Risk Management Plans Flood/Hazard Map RBMP Costs and Benefits? Do we need change? Costs? Are we turning our backs on rivers and coasts? we still flood, the future cost?, 30% topsoil (national), draining land everywhere, >90% river length modified (Thames) and over 80% waters failing ecology, Thames salmon gone = restaurants, B&Bs, tackle shops closed, membership decline, upper Thames not good ecological state, many wildlife impacts, economic benefits of a healthy environment, community cohesion, fertiliser /maintenance costs, somewhere for children to play and visitors enjoy (future), culverting, accessible blue/green infrastructure, unsafe water… This may cost tax payers a very indicative £500k to £3.8million per catchment every few years (2014 Environment Agency national catchment event). Cost £9.5million to £72.2million in the Thames basin every few years. Can we afford not work together, is this estimate right? Whats to gain? Better soils, sustainable futures, solving problems not symptoms, bridging gap between poor and rich from up-skilling, employment and outreach, we are happier and work together.. Water for life and livelihoods; a better balance between using and protecting the environment. A sense of place toenjoy Do we want to turn our back on catchments, wetlands, rivers and coasts? (Mersey Basin Campaign following 1981 riots etc) flooding scenarios suggest not. Get in touch with River Basin Management Plans, Flood Risk Management Plans and catchment delivery to help solve these for you and our future generations in your catchment Flood risk management duties & obligations National Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Strategy Avoid damaging the environment, wherever possible work with natural processes Always seek to provide environmental benefit, as required by Water Framework Directive England Biodiversity Strategy 2020 5000ha new habitat 95% SSSIs in favourable condition WFD FCRM works must not cause deterioration to the ecology of a water body FCRM should try to find opportunities to improve the ecology of water bodies What can we do? Collaborative advantage Adopt Catchment Based Approach Work with natural processes Develop & promote good practice Design projects early with multiple benefits Spatial planning and development solutions We are all the solution Right measures in precisely the right place Aiming for multiple benefits (Semi Natural) Gravel bed and earth banks Multi Benefit Aspirational Single Focus GEP Highly Modified Channel Culverted or channelised Practicing working with natural processes Working with natural processes restores habitats and improves flood risk management by design Thames river basin district: Significant water management issues Solutions: community action, flood management and wider interest turning this... WFD Directive 2000/60/EC – framework for community action in water policy… AND DELIVERY http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water- framework/index_en.html To this: better soils, reducing run off managing flood risk Cotswolds and Upper Thames Source: D Martyn from Upper Thames visit Managing Thame catchment run off and diffuse pollution Source: P. Nicolet January 2014 Thames RBD Liaison Panel presentation River of Life – Thames Shillingford Source: L
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hart DC, Chair), Kathryn Steele (Hart DC, Secretary), Therese Abbott (Easement Holders), John Collman (Naturalist), Lindsay Mackay (Small Land Owners
    Hazeley Heath Consultative Group 22/08/2017 Victoria Hall, Hartley Wintney Present: Phil Maund (Hart DC, Chair), Kathryn Steele (Hart DC, Secretary), Therese Abbott (Easement holders), John Collman (Naturalist), Lindsay Mackay (Small land owners) Apologies: Leigh Wallace (Hart DC), Mike Coates (RSPB), David Sexton (Mattingley Parish), Julian Bishop (Commoners) 1. Minutes from previous meeting Minutes were considered and approved. 2. Matters arising Hart Ponds - PM: Previously awaiting confirmation if consent is required for new ponds, consent is not required if an existing pond. Letter from Mattingley Parish - PM: Hart and RSPB are awaiting a signed letter of consent for the PINS application from Mattingley Parish Council. This has been completed via LW and MC. Natural England surveys - Action is outstanding for Matt Taylor (Natural England) to find out when the field units are due at Hazeley. ACTION: PM Bramshill crossing - PM: No change from 09/05/2017 meeting. ACTION: LW/PM Himalayan Balsam – PM: No enforcement available for neighbouring land on Hazeley streams and rivers. Hart can manage what they are responsible for. There is scope for an initiative such as volunteering to aid in the removal of Himalayan Balsam. Fencing Application – PM: HART and the RSPB have met and chose the same specification and structures. Naming of Features – JC: The features still require naming such as the scrapes. This is to be carried out during winter when there is less work on. HART and the RSPB to aid in choosing these alongside the management plan. Are these to be short coded names or site relevant names? ACTION: PM/ JC Surveys 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Email Exchanges Between Wokingham Borough Council And
    From: Sent: 27 March 2020 11:36 To: [email protected] Subject: GE202003362 - ONR resposne to Wokingham Borough Council Local plan Update Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Sir/Madam, In response to your emails dated 3 February and 18 March regarding the 2020 Wokingham Borough Local Plan Update consultation, please find below ONR’s response, which is provided in line with our Land Use Planning policy published here http://www.onr.org.uk/land-use-planning.htm. Since ONR responded to the previous draft Local Plan Update consultation on 21 January 2019 (see email below) the proposed development locations included in the draft local plan have significantly changed. Additionally, the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ) for the AWE Burghfield site has been re-determined by West Berkshire District Council under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations (REPPIR) 2019 resulting in a larger DEPZ. ONR’s current position remains that we would be likely to object to: • developments within the DEPZ, unless the West Berkshire District Council emergency planner provides adequate assurance to ONR that any adverse impact on the operability and viability of the off-site emergency plan could be mitigated. • large scale developments within the circular 5km Outer Consultation Zone (OCZ), which extends beyond the DEPZ from grid reference SU684680, unless the West Berkshire District Council emergency planner provides adequate assurance to ONR that any adverse impact on the operability and viability of the off-site emergency plan could be mitigated. ONR has previously responded regarding the two development locations below which are included in both the 2018/19 Local Plan Update consultation and the 2020 Local Plan Update consultation: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Bramshill Site of Special Scientific Interest
    The Dragonflies of Bramshill Site of Special Scientific Interest Freshwater Habitats Trust Author Ken Crick Forward Bramshill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is a Flagship Pond Site. Part of a network of the very best of Britain’s ponds; sites of exceptional importance for freshwater wildlife and some of our finest freshwater habitats. The Flagship sites can be a single special pond, or more commonly group of ponds, selected because they support rich, often irreplaceable, communities and species at risk of extinction. They represent some of the least impacted, most diverse pond habitats remaining in the country. Many of our nation’s most beautiful and biodiverse waterbodies have degraded irrevocably, and it’s critically important that the remaining sites are well protected and well managed. In 2015, with funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, Freshwater Habitats Trust launched the Flagship Ponds project, Mats of Water Crowfoot flower on Bramshill working with land managers and community groups to ensure that the most Plantation’s Longwater. critical pond sites in Britain were protected for the long term. This book has been published with the aim of enabling people visiting this, Introduction immensely important Flagship Pond Site in Northern Hampshire, to identify the dragonflies and damselflies they encounter - by reference to a simple text This nationally important Site of managed by Forestry Commission and in places subsequent backfilling Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) England (FCE), please see the site with landfill, Bramshill SSSI has and photographs. It should also inform those visiting the site of the location is notified as such in part for its map on page 6 which depicts the through a combination of careful of the majority of freshwater habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Display PDF in Separate
    BLACKWATER RIVER DRAFT CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN April 1992 NRA National Rivers Authority Thames Region BLACKWATER RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSULTATION DRAFT April 1992 FOREWARD The National Rivers Authority was created in 1989 to conserve and enhance the natural water environment. In our role as 'Guardians of the Water Environment' we are committed to preparing a sound and thorough plan for the future management of the region's river catchments. This Draft Catchment Management Plan is a step towards achieving that goal for the Blackwater River catchment. As a vehicle for consultation it will provide a means of seeking a consensus on the way ahead and as a planning document it will be a means of seeking commitment from all parties to realising the environmental potential of the catchment. » '' I ■ ; We look forward to receiving the contributions of those organisations and individuals involved with the river and its catchment. Les Jones Regional General Manager Kings Meadow House Kings Meadow Road Reading Berks RGl 800 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY II Tel: Reading (0734) 535000 II Telex: 849614 NRATHA G Fax: (0734) 500388 121268 Blackwater Rivet DRAFT CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN A p r i l 1 9 9 2 National Rivers Authority Thames Region King's Meadow House King's Meadow Road Reading BLACKWATER RIVER DRAFT CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS LIST Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The National Rivers Authority 1.1 1.2 Catchment Management Planning 1.2 2.0 CATCHMENT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Introduction 2.1 2.2 General Features 2.2 2.3 Topography 2.4 2.4
    [Show full text]
  • Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
    Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Published in December 2014 RBWM Local Flood Risk Management Strategy December 2014 2 RBWM Local Flood Risk Management Strategy December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................8 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................8 1.1 The Purpose of the Strategy ...........................................................................................8 1.2 Overview of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead ................................................9 1.3 Types of flooding ....................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Who is this Strategy aimed at? .....................................................................................12 1.5 The period covered by the Strategy ...............................................................................12 1.6 The Objectives of the Strategy ......................................................................................12 1.7 Scrutiny and Review ...................................................................................................13 2 Legislative Context ..........................................................................................................14 2.1 The Pitt Review .........................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Podolak Multifunctional Riverscapes
    Multifunctional Riverscapes: Stream restoration, Capability Brown’s water features, and artificial whitewater By Kristen Nicole Podolak A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Professor Louise Mozingo Professor Vincent H. Resh Spring 2012 i Abstract Multifunctional Riverscapes by Kristen Nicole Podolak Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning University of California, Berkeley Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Society is investing in river restoration and urban river revitalization as a solution for sustainable development. Many of these river projects adopt a multifunctional planning and design approach that strives to meld ecological, aesthetic, and recreational functions. However our understanding of how to accomplish multifunctionality and how the different functions work together is incomplete. Numerous ecologically justified river restoration projects may actually be driven by aesthetic and recreational preferences that are largely unexamined. At the same time river projects originally designed for aesthetics or recreation are now attempting to integrate habitat and environmental considerations to make the rivers more sustainable. Through in-depth study of a variety of constructed river landscapes - including dense historical river bend designs, artificial whitewater, and urban stream restoration this dissertation analyzes how aesthetic, ecological, and recreational functions intersect and potentially conflict. To explore how aesthetic and biophysical processes work together in riverscapes, I explored the relationship between one ideal of beauty, an s-curve illustrated by William Hogarth in the 18th century and two sets of river designs: 18th century river designs in England and late 20th century river restoration designs in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Road Drainage and the Water Environment
    HIGHWAYS AGENCY – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY 15 ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE WATER ENVIRONMENT 15.1 Introduction 15.1.1 This chapter assesses the impacts of the Scheme on road drainage and the water environment during construction and operation, focussing on the effects of highway drainage on the quality and hydrology of receiving waters. In view of the long design-life of the Scheme (30 years for new gantries, 40 years for new carriageway construction, and 120 years for new bridges), the decommissioning phase of the Scheme has not been considered in this chapter because its effects are not predicted to be worse than the effects assessed during the construction and operational phases. The chapter assesses four principal impacts: a) effects of routine runoff on surface water bodies; b) effects of routine runoff on groundwater; c) pollution impacts from spillages; and d) flood impacts. 15.1.2 Although Interim Advice Note (”IAN”) 161/13 ‘Managed Motorways, All lane running’ (Ref 15-1) has scoped out the assessment of ‘Road Drainage and the Water Environment’ for smart motorway schemes, the assessment is required to ensure the protection of the water environment, to prevent its degradation, and ensure adequate mitigation measures are in place to prevent any adverse impacts. 15.1.3 The road drainage and water environment assessment for the Scheme has been undertaken in accordance with standard industry practice and statutory guidance. 15.1.4 This chapter details the methodology followed for the assessment, and summarises the regulatory and policy framework relating to road drainage and the water environment.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Hatch Farm, Mill Lane, Sindlesham Wokingham, Berkshire RG41 5DD Hatch Farm | Mill Lane
    Hatch Farm, Mill Lane, Sindlesham Wokingham, Berkshire RG41 5DD Hatch Farm | Mill Lane Sindlesham | Wokingham | Berkshire | RG41 5DD A substantial investment portfolio comprising of 11 dwellings with a wide range of Equestrian and Agricultural Buildings In total about 109 acres (44.13 ha) of mostly pastureland FOR SALE BY PRIVATE TREATY AS A WHOLE OR AS 11 LOTS Offers in excess of £5,000,000 Situation Hatch Farm is situated 3.8 miles west of Wokingham and 7.5 miles south east of Reading. Junction 10 of the M4 lies to the east. Directions From the M4. Take exit 10 and the A329(M) traveling north for 2 miles and taking the exit at Winnersh Triangle. Follow the signs to Lower Earley going over the first 2 roundabouts and then at the Moat House Hotel roundabout take the first exit onto Mill Lane. After passing over a couple of bridges and under the M4 Motorway the entrance to the farm buildings at Hatch Farm will be on the right. Description The property is available to purchase as a whole or in 11 lots. There are 11 residential properties, four having regulated tenants and 7 being assured shorthold tenancies. There are 100 acres of pastureland and various farm buildings utilised for equestrian and agricultural uses. Also included are two telecommunication masts. Lot 1 - Residential Portfolio of 7 properties Larkrise 3 bedroom semi detached house with garage and parking. Subject to an agricultural occupancy condition and occupied by the farm manager and his wife. The farm manager and his wife have a 10 year guaranteed rent free period.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper River Loddon Issues
    Upper Loddon Pressure Issue Location Solution Look at the river valley as a whole, reconnect the floodplain and create/enhance adjacent habitatas fen/wetland etc. Benefits for Biodiversity 2020 targets and flood alleviation d/s. BDBC GI want to work with the EA/catchment host Invasive species Basingstoke Town centre Raise awareness of the problems with the river through the town, would be nice to get water voles and kingfishers back. Coordinate mink control, no gaps – possible role for the host group Basingstoke is a NVZ Pollution incidents Sewage pipes not good enough Beech Hill Point source pollution Pollution from sewage treatment works, Sherfield on Loddon, u/s Pump somewhere else, Kennet? Basingstke, Sherborn St John and Sherfield, contributing to algae and disclorouration. Point source pollutiom Oestrogen from STW Use ferric oxide to remove phosphate, but at max level. But no limits on phosphate limits companies can put into river. Abstraction Over abstraction – low levels Reduce abstraction Sustainable water supply – reservoir, will also provide biodiversity benefits. Maintain flows throughout the river Habitat quality Priory Mill stream is dry most summers Priory Mill Habitat quality Morphology No dredging Flooding Flooding Flooding Perched River Just above Longbridge Mill Reconnect to floodplain Flooding u/s Swallowfield Restore floodplain Habitat quality Trees have reached the end of their Upper Loddon natural life; no longer get help from the EA to maintain. Habitat quality Aesthetic restoration at Festival Place Habitat quality Basing Fen Habitat restoration Habitat quality Walkway from Basingstoke to Barton is overused. Bikes and dogs are a problem. Habitat quality Bow Brook Habitat improvements, bank rehabilitation and gravels.
    [Show full text]
  • GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Nationalgrideso UNRESTRICTED GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Tuesday 11 June 2019
    GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report nationalgridESO UNRESTRICTED GB Electricity System Operator Daily Report Tuesday 11 June 2019 Today’s High Level Risk Status Forecast for the next 24h Time General Status Voltage PSM Demand System Inertia 07:00 - 14:00 System Margins Weather Duty 14:00 - 21:00 Generation Transmission Officer 21:00 - 07:00 Active Constraints Today’s Minimum De-Rated Margin 3891.13 (SP 36) System Warnings None Generation Variable Current BMU Largest Loss Risk Demand 560MW Balancing Costs Last 241 hours'6 ENCC11 BM16 spend212631Total:36 £729k414651566166717681869196 £80k £60k £40k £20k £0k -£20k -£40k Yesterday’s Market Summary Cash out price (Max) £80.00 /MWh (SP 20) Cash Out Price (Min) £23.01 /MWh (SP 15) Peak Demand Yesterday 28,745 MW NETS Status Report; 11 June 2019 2 of 4 nationalgridESO UNRESTRICTED Interconnectors Today Import Export Netherlands (BritNed) 1060 1060 Fully Available France (IFA) 1500 1500 Pole 1 unavailable, due to RTS at 12:00hrs Belgium (Nemo) 1013 1013 Fullly Available Ireland (EWIC) 500 530 Fullly Available Northern Ireland (MOYLE) 395 500 Partially available. Wind Power Forecast Key: Expected embedded generation (MWs) Embedded Generation Forecast 10-JUN-2019 11-JUN-2019 12-JUN-2019 05:00 08:00 12:00 17:00 21:00 00:00 05:00 08:00 12:00 17:00 21:00 00:00 05:00 08:00 12:00 17:00 21:00 Solar (MW) 1 1640 3830 1700 46 0 0 1039 3564 2060 29 0 0 725 2193 1717 38 Wind (MW) 284 381 689 1203 1281 1361 1783 2073 2250 2137 1798 1760 1712 1706 1773 1751 1600 STOR (MW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total (MW) 285 2021 4519 2903 1327 1361 1783 3112 5814 4197 1827 1760 1712 2431 3966 3468 1638 NETS Status Report; 11 June 2019 3 of 4 nationalgridESO UNRESTRICTED Weather Source Commentary 11/05/2019 Met Office Today: (Summary) SEPA Rain, heavy at times, and strong winds will continue across much of Natural Resources Wales England and Wales, although south and southeastern parts will be brighter with lighter winds but with heavy, thundery showers developing.
    [Show full text]
  • Loddon Catchment Implementation Plan
    Loddon Catchment Implementation Plan January 2012 – FOR COMMMENT (Version C2) Glossary.....................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction...................................................................................................6 2 Loddon catchment summary.......................................................................9 2.1 General Description .....................................................................................9 2.2 Catchment map........................................................................................... 10 3 Water body information ............................................................................. 11 3.1 Classification.................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Heavily Modified Water Bodies..................................................................... 11 4 Actions ........................................................................................................ 11 4.1 Operational monitoring (2010-12) ............................................................. 12 4.2 Investigations (2010-12)............................................................................. 12 4.3 Improvement actions (in place by 2012)................................................... 12 4.3.1 ‘Day Job’ activities.............................................................................................. 13 4.3.2 Field actions ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]