DOCSLIB.ORG

H&Fr- Ju REDGRAVE and LOPHAM FENS RESTORATION PROJECT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
H&Fr- Ju REDGRAVE and LOPHAM FENS RESTORATION PROJECT H&fr- j U r * /nTAj\- Avl £ National Rivers Authority Anglian Region REDGRAVE AND LOPHAM FENS RESTORATION PROJECT: HYDROLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Final Report Ref. 84.307.0/31 22/REDL0P1.A02 Howard Humphreys & Partners Ltd Thorncroft Manor Dorking Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 8JB April 1994 W Brown & Root Civil NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY ANGLIAN REGION REDGRAVE AND LOPHAM FENS RESTORATION PROJECT HYDROLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 Methodology 4 1.4 Format of Report 5 2. REDGRAVE AND LOPHAM FENS 7 2.1 Description of Site 7 2.2 Sensitivity to Chalk Groundwater 8 2.3 Effects of Historic Groundwater Level Changes 9 2.4 Effects of Management Practices 10 3. OTHER WETLAND NATURE CONSERVATION SITES 11 3.1 Description of Statutory Conservation Sites 11 3.2 Description of Non-statutory Conservation Sites 13 3-3 Effects of Management Practices 14 3.4 Summary 14 4. HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA 16 4.1 Geology 16 4.2 Aquifer Parameters 16 4.3 Piezometry 17 4.4 Groundwater Catchments 17 4.5 Interaction with Drift and Watercourses 18 4.6 Water Quality 18 4.7 Abstractions 19 4.8 Water Balances for Catchments 19 4.9 Historic Changes in Groundwater Levels 21 Ref: 84.307.0/WP/3122/RED1.0P1.A02 5. ECOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT 22 51 Plant Species Water Level Preference 22 5-2 Presence of Plant Species of Conservation Interest 24 5-3 Presence of Animal Species of Biological Interest 24 5-4 Presence of Communities of Conservation Interest 24 5.5 Groundwater Quality 25 5.6 Summary of Ecological Sensitivity 25 HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL METHODOLOGY 27 6.1 Introduction. 27 6.2 Estimations of Changes in Chalk Groundwater Levels 27 6.3 Wetland Sensitivity to Chalk Groundwater Levels 29 6.4 Assessment of Hydrogeological Effects of Borehole Sites 30 6.4.1 Water Level and Throughflow Changes 30 6.4.2 Conservation Sites 30 6.4.3 Groundwater Abstractions 30 6.4.4 River Flows 31 6.4.5 River Water Quality 31 6.4.6 River Abstractors 31 31 6.5 Catchment Water Balances 31 GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 32 7.1 Introduction 32 7.2 Do Nothing Option 32 7.2.1 Effects on Chalk and Drift Aquifers 32 7.2.2 Effects on Redgrave and Lophani Fens 33 7.2.3 Effects on Other Wetlands 34 7.2.4 Effects on Abstractions 35 7.2.5 Effects on Rivers 35 7.3 Relocate Abstraction to North Lopham 36 7.3-1 Effects on Chalk and Drift Aquifers 36 7.3.2 Effects on Redgrave and Lopham Fens 37 7-3-3 Effects on Other Wetlands 37 7.3.4 Effects on Abstractions 38 7.3.5 Effects on Rivers 38 7.4 Relocate Abstraction to Wortham/Mellis: Option 1 40 7.4.1 Effects on Chalk and Drift Aquifers 40 7.4.2 Effects on Redgrave and Lophani Fens 40 7.4.3 Effects on Other Wetlands 41 7.4.4 Effects on Abstractions 41 7.4.5 Effects on Rivers 41 7.5 Relocate Abstraction to Wortham/Mellis: Option 2 43 7.5.1 Effects on Chalk and Drift Aquifers 43 7.5.2 Effects on Redgrave and Lopham Fens 43 7.5.3 Effects on Other Wetlands 44 7.5.4 Effects on Abstractions 44 7.5 5 Effects on Rivers 44 7.6~ "Relocate Abstraction-to-Wortham/Mellis:-Option 3— ----- - - ------ .45 7.6.1 Effects on Chalk and Drift Aquifers 45 7.6.2 Effects on Redgrave and Ix>pham Fens 46 ”7.6.3 Effects on Other Wetlands 46 7.6.4 Effects on Abstractions 46 7.6.5 Effects on Rivers 47 Ref: 84.J07.0/W*J5l22/REDLC)P1.AO2 7.7 Relocate Abstraction to Wetheringsett 47 7.7.1 Effects on Chalk and Drift Aquifers 47 7.7.2 Effects on Redgrave and Lopham Fens 48 7.7.3 Effects on Other Wetlands 48 7.7.4 Effects on Abstractions 49 7.7.5 Effects on Rivers 49 8. RIVER WAVENEY 52 8.1 Historic Changes 52 8.2 River Restoration 52 9. IRRIGATION OF REDGRAVE AND LOPHAM FENS 54 10. COMPARISON OF REMEDIATION OPTIONS 55 10.1 Aims of Remediation 55 10.2 Irrigation and River Restoration Options 55 10.3 Groundwater Development Options 56 10.4 Conclusions 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ref: 84.J07.0/WP/3122fREDLOPl.AO2 APPENEQCES APPENDIX A Terms of Reference APPENDIX B List of Contacts APPENDIX C Categories of Plant Species Sensitive to Ground Water Levels APPENDIX D Plant Communities at Wetland Sites APPENDIX E Groundwater Catchment Water Balances APPENDIX F Hydrogeological Summary tor Each Development Option - includes drawdown estimates, geological section, and listing of groundwater abstraction licenses and unlicensed sources affected. Ref: «i*X p.0/W P/3I22/RED LO Pl.A O2 LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Current Status of Wetland Conservation Sites 4.1 Geological Sequence in the Project Area 5.1 Plant Species Groupings based on Mean Water Level Requirements 5.2 Species Recorded at Wetland Sites 5-3 Estimated Site Sensitivities Based on Current Status 6.1 Wetland Conservation Site Hydrogeological Sensitivity 7.1 Estimated Incremental Effects on Wetland Sites: Do Nothing Option 7.2 Predicted Impacts of the Do Nothing Option 7.3 Incremental Effects on Rivers for the Do Nothing Option 7.4 Estimated Incremental Effects on Wetland Sites: North Lopham (no river augmentation pumping) 7.5 Estimated Incremental Effects on Wetland Sites: North Lopham (with river augmentation pumping) 7.6 Predicted Impacts of Relocation to North lx>pham (no river augmentation pumping) 7.7 Predicted Impacts of Relocation to North Lopham (with river augmentation pumping) 7.8 Incremental Effects on Rivers for the North Lopham Option (no river augmentation pumping) 7.9 Incremental Effects on Rivers for the North Lopham Option (with river augmentation pumping) 7.10 Estimated Incremental Effects on Wetland Sites: Wortham/Mellis Option 1 7.11 Predicted Impacts of Relocation of Wortham/Mellis Option 1 7.12 Incremental Effects on Rivers for the Wortham/Mellis Option 1 7.13 Estimated Incremental Effects on Wetland Sites: Wortham/Mellis Option 2 7.14 Predicted Impacts of Relocation to Wortham/Mellis Option 2 7.15 Incremental Effect on Rivers for the Wortham/Mellis Option 2 7.16 Estimated Incremental Effects on Wetland Sites: Wortham/Mellis Option 3 ~ 7.17 Predicted Impacts of Relocation to Wortham/Mellis Option 3 7.18 Incremental Effects on Rivers for the Wortham/Mellis Option 3 R tf: 84.307.0/WP/J 122/REDL 0 P 1.A02 7.19 Estimated Incremental Effects on Wetland Sites: Wetheringsett (with and without river augmentation pumping) 7.20 Predicted Impacts of Relocation to Wetheringsett (with and without river augmentation pumping) 7.21 Incremental Effects on Rivers for the Wetheringsett Option (no river augmentation pumping) 7.22 Incremental Effects on Rivers for the Wetheringsett Option (with river augmentation pumping) 10.1 Summary of Impacts for Alleviation Options Ref: 84.307.0/WP/J122/REDLOKI-AO2 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Location Map 4.1 Contour Map for the Surface of the Chalk 4.2 Geological Section 1 4.3 Geological Section 2 4.4 Geological Section 3 4.5 Boulder Clay Outcrop 4.6 Groundwater Contour Map for the Chalk Aquifer 1976 4.7 Groundwater Contour Map for the Chalk Aquifer October 1992 (Historical Low) 4.8 Groundwater Contour Map for the Chalk Aquifer May 1988 (Historical High) 4.9 Topographic Map Showing Surface Water Catchment Boundaries 4.10 Groundwater and Surface Water Abstractions 5.1 Typical Response of a Population to a Major Ecological Stress 6.1 Estimated Drawdown Cone at each Pumping Station Site 6.2 Groundwater Catchment Areas for Development Options Ref: 84.307.0/WP/3122/REDLORI.AO2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Ref: 84.J07.0/WP/J122/REDLOP1.AO2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Aquiclude Geological unit which is impermeable and does not transmit water at all. Aquifer Geological unit permeable enough to yield economic quantities of water to wells. Aquitard Geological unit permeable enough to transmit water in significant quantities when viewed over large areas or long periods but its permeability is not sufficient to yield economic quantities of water. Average Score per An index of biological quality based on sensitivity of aquatic Taxon (ASPT) invertebrates to organic pollution and derived from the BMWP score Biological Monitoring : Biological Monitoring Working Party score, an index of biological Working Party (BMWP) water quality which assigns high scores to families of invertebrates sensitive to organic pollution and low scores to pollution-tolerant families. Confined aquifer Aquifer bounded above and below by an aquiclude. CORINE A tool for the standardised recording of vegetation diversity within the surveyed areas, including the representation of pattern by vegetation mapping, used within the European Union. Homeostasis A system will tend to remain in balance until internal or external feedbacks become so out of balance that the system crashes precipitously to an altered state. Leaky aquifer Aquifer bounded above and/or below by an aquitard. Natural Vegetation A tool for the standardised recording of vegetation diversity Classification (NVC) within the surveyed areas, including the representation of pattern by vegetation mapping, used in the United Kingdom. NWC National Water Quality Classification Class la and lb Good Class 2 Fair Class 3 Poor Class 4 Bad Piezometry : Mapping of the Hydraulic heads for an aquifer to indicate the direction of groundwater flow. Soligenous : High water tables of the fen are maintained by below-ground water inputs, either from aquifers or soil through flow.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parish Share Report
    PARISH SHARE PAYMENTS For period ended 30th September 2019 SUMMARY OF PARISH SHARE PAYMENTS BY DEANERIES Dean Amount % Deanery Share Received for 2019 % Deanery Share % No Outstanding 2018 2019 to period end 2018 Received for 2018 received £ £ £ £ £ Norwich Archdeaconry 06 Norwich East 23,500 4.41 557,186 354,184 63.57 532,380 322,654 60.61 04 Norwich North 47,317 9.36 508,577 333,671 65.61 505,697 335,854 66.41 05 Norwich South 28,950 7.21 409,212 267,621 65.40 401,270 276,984 69.03 Norfolk Archdeaconry 01 Blofield 37,303 11.04 327,284 212,276 64.86 338,033 227,711 67.36 11 Depwade 46,736 16.20 280,831 137,847 49.09 288,484 155,218 53.80 02 Great Yarmouth 44,786 9.37 467,972 283,804 60.65 478,063 278,114 58.18 13 Humbleyard 47,747 11.00 437,949 192,301 43.91 433,952 205,085 47.26 14 Loddon 62,404 19.34 335,571 165,520 49.32 322,731 174,229 53.99 15 Lothingland 21,237 3.90 562,194 381,997 67.95 545,102 401,890 73.73 16 Redenhall 55,930 17.17 339,813 183,032 53.86 325,740 187,989 57.71 09 St Benet 36,663 9.24 380,642 229,484 60.29 396,955 243,433 61.33 17 Thetford & Rockland 31,271 10.39 314,266 182,806 58.17 300,933 192,966 64.12 Lynn Archdeaconry 18 Breckland 45,799 11.97 397,811 233,505 58.70 382,462 239,714 62.68 20 Burnham & Walsingham 63,028 15.65 396,393 241,163 60.84 402,850 256,123 63.58 12 Dereham in Mitford 43,605 12.03 353,955 223,631 63.18 362,376 208,125 57.43 21 Heacham & Rising 24,243 6.74 377,375 245,242 64.99 359,790 242,156 67.30 22 Holt 28,275 8.55 327,646 207,089 63.21 330,766 214,952 64.99 23 Lynn 10,805 3.30 330,152 196,022 59.37 326,964 187,510 57.35 07 Repps 0 0.00 383,729 278,123 72.48 382,728 285,790 74.67 03 08 Ingworth & Sparham 27,983 6.66 425,260 239,965 56.43 420,215 258,960 61.63 727,583 9.28 7,913,818 4,789,282 60.52 7,837,491 4,895,456 62.46 01/10/2019 NORWICH DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE LTD DEANERY HISTORY REPORT MONTH September YEAR 2019 SUMMARY PARISH 2017 OUTST.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Constraints Study October 2020 Contents 1
    Environmental Constraints Study October 2020 Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................... 2 2. Environmental constraints ................................................................. 3 Conservation and heritage ................................................................. 4 Biodiversity and geodiversity .............................................................. 6 Flood risk ........................................................................................ 8 Agricultural land ............................................................................. 10 Land associated with horseracing industry uses .................................. 12 Ministry of Defence (MOD) ............................................................... 14 Annex 1 – Significant constraints ............................................................. 16 Figure 1 Conservation and heritage constraints map ..................................... 5 Figure 2 Biodiversity and geodiversity constraints map .................................. 7 Figure 3 Flood risk constraints map ............................................................ 9 Figure 4 Agricultural land constraints map ................................................. 11 Figure 5 Horseracing industry constraints map .......................................... 13 Figure 6 Ministry of Defence (MOD) constraints map ................................... 15 1 1. Introduction 1.1. The purpose of the Development Constraints Study is to establish
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies
    Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Site Specific Allocations & Policies Document, Wymondham Area Action Plan, Long Stratton Area Action Plan and Cringleford Neighbourhood Development Plan, undertaken for South Norfolk Council October 2013 Natural Environment Team HRA of Site Allocations Document, Wymondham AAP, Long Stratton AAP and Cringleford Neighbourhood Plan for South Norfolk Council October 2013 Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document, the Wymondham Area Action Plan, the Long Stratton Area Action Plan and the Cringleford Neighbourhood Development Plan Executive Summary As required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, before deciding to give consent or permission for a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, the competent authority is required to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives. This document is a record of the Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Sites Allocation Document, undertaken for South Norfolk Council. Additionally, proposed development at Wymondham, as described in the emerging Wymondham Area Action Plan, at Long Stratton, as described in the emerging Long Stratton Area Action Plan and proposed housing in the parish of Cringleford, guided by the emerging Cringleford Draft Neighbourhood Plan, are assessed Three groups of plans are reviewed with respect to their conclusions with respect to potential in-combination effects. These are plans for The Greater Norwich Development Partnership, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Breckland District Council, and The Broads Authority including local development plans and the Tourism Strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Excursions 1997. Report and Notes on Some Findings. 19
    EXCURSIONS1997 Reportand noteson somefindings 19 April. Philip Aitkens Ixworth, Garboldishamand North Lopham The towers of these three churches are believed to have been built by the 15th-century workshopof master masons,Aldrichof North Lopham, Norfolk. Acontract wasdrawn up in 1486between the churchwardens of Helmingham and Thomas Aldrich of North Lopham to construct their tower; today, it has a fine inscription at the base. North Lopham tower is believed,from evidencein wills,to have been commencedin 1479;an inscriptionby the same hand as that at Helminghamappears at mid-heighton the north side,but at the base isa band ofstone devices,flushwork-filled.Inscriptionsdated c.1480-1500are alsofound, for example, at Brockley(on the tower),Botesdale(over the north door) and Garboldisham(north porch), all by the same hand. Similardevicesin flushworkare to be found on many other churches c. 1460-80,especiallyat the basesof towers:those at Ixworth, BadwellAshand Elmswellform a notable group. SeealsoGarboldisham,Northwold,Fincham,NewBuckenham,Kenninghall and Mendlesharn. Other architectural features closelymatch, clear evidence of a common designer. These are mostlydatable by willsto c.1460-80. It is believedthat a new generation at the Aldrich workshop commences c. 1486, favouring inscriptions instead of flushwork devices. Acontract wasmade withThomas Aldrichto rebuild the east wallofThetford Priory, 1505-07. lxworth, St Mary'sChurch. The annual general meeting washeld here by kind permissionof the Revd P. Oliver. The tower was begun c. 1472, as evidenced by the 'Thomas Vyal' tile, commemorating the bequest of six marks by a prosperous localcarpenter in Decemberthat year,for workon the new`stepyr,and twotilesinscribedwiththe name ofWilliamDensy,Prior of the Augustinianhouse at Ixworth, 1467-84,one of them alsodated 1472.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    Little Ouse Headwaters Project in partnership with the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts PRESS RELEASE The LOHP Creative Group Exhibition 2013 Saturday 19 & Sunday 20 October Saturday 26 & Sunday 27 October 11am - 4pm 11am - 4pm at Lophams’ Village Hall at Thelnetham Village Hall and Blo’ Norton Village Hall Hinderclay Fen, Rosemary Humphries Chaffinch Nest, Sheila Tilmouth The Little Ouse Headwaters Project and the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts are pleased to present the results of an 18 month-long creative project, which celebrates the landscapes and wildlife of the upper valley of the Little Ouse river, at the borders of Norfolk and Suffolk. Three exhibitions are being held over the weekends of 19 and 26 October featuring painting, sculpture, textiles, photography, illustration, and writing inspired by the valley, the source of the river and the tiny details that make it a unique place. Dedicated to the restoration, conservation and promotion of enjoyment of the wildlife and landscape of the Little Ouse valley on the Norfolk / Suffolk borders, the LOHP is focused around the headwaters of the River Ouse, in the villages of Blo’ Norton, Garboldisham, Hinderclay, North & South Lopham, Redgrave, and Thelnetham. In partnership with the Education & Research Department at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, the LOHP formed a creative group with the aim to celebrate the Little Ouse valley through art, writing and performance. Members of the group have been creating works inspired by the fascinating and unusual landscape and nationally rare species of the area. On Saturday 19 & Sunday 20 October at Lophams’ village hall, the exhibition will present work in watercolour, oil, textile, ceramic, wood, and printed text, which celebrates the subtlety of this quiet landscape, its soft colours, and the beauty and range of the local species.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Ouse and Waveney Project
    Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Mott MacDonald Norfolk County Council Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Little Ouse and Waveney Project May 2006 214980-UA02/01/B - 12th May 2006 Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Mott MacDonald Norfolk County Council Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Little Ouse and Waveney Project Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description 13 th Jan J. For January TEN A E. Lunt 2006 Purseglove workshop 24 th May E. Lunt J. B Draft for Comment 2006 Purseglove This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any o ther project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a pur pose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage re sulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald and used by Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • West Northamptonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Part 1 Northamptonshire County Council March 2019
    West Northamptonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Part 1 Northamptonshire County Council March 2019 REVISION SCHEDULE West Northamptonshire Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Revision Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by st 01 31 July Draft SFRA Josie Bateman Phil Jones Alison Parry 2017 Level 1 th 02 5 Interim Draft Josie Bateman Aiden Grist Alison Parry October SFRA Level 1 2017 th 03 14 Final Draft Josie Bateman Aiden Grist Alison Parry November SFRA Level 1 2017 th 04 5 Final SFRA Josie Bateman Aiden Grist Alison Parry December Level 1 SFRA 2017 th 05 19 March Updated Aiden Grist Phil Jones Alison Parry 2019 Groundwater Mapping Northamptonshire County Council Place Directorate Flood and water Management One Angel Square 4 Angel Street Northampton NN1 1ED CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 7 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 7 OUTCOMES OF THE LEVEL 1 STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 7 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 10 APPLYING THE SEQUENTIAL TEST FOR PLAN MAKING PURPOSES ...................................................... 10 APPLYING THE EXCEPTION TEST FOR PLAN MAKING PURPOSES ....................................................... 11 STUDY AREA ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Site Improvement Plan Waveney and Little Ouse Valley Fens
    Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS) Planning for the Future Site Improvement Plan Waveney and Little Ouse Valley Fens Site Improvement Plans (SIPs) have been developed for each Natura 2000 site in England as part of the Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). Natura 2000 sites is the combined term for sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protected Areas (SPA). This work has been financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community. The plan provides a high level overview of the issues (both current and predicted) affecting the condition of the Natura 2000 features on the site(s) and outlines the priority measures required to improve the condition of the features. It does not cover issues where remedial actions are already in place or ongoing management activities which are required for maintenance. The SIP consists of three parts: a Summary table, which sets out the priority Issues and Measures; a detailed Actions table, which sets out who needs to do what, when and how much it is estimated to cost; and a set of tables containing contextual information and links. Once this current programme ends, it is anticipated that Natural England and others, working with landowners and managers, will all play a role in delivering the priority measures to improve the condition of the features on these sites. The SIPs are based on Natural England's current evidence and knowledge. The SIPs are not legal documents, they are live documents that will be updated to reflect changes in our evidence/knowledge and as actions get underway.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Canoe Club Newsletter
    Volume 1, Issue 2 Cambridge Canoe Spring 2010 Club Newsletter http://www.cambridgecanoeclub.org.uk This newsletter relies on contri- butions from members. If you have been on a My Club Experience by David Huddleston trip, have a point of view or news write it down and send it in to News- Hi, my name is David and I am [email protected]. thirteen years old. I joined the Articles should be between 75 and canoe club three years ago. I 150 words long and can be accom- started at the Abbey swimming panied by a picture. pool before moving onto the Cam where I did my 1 star course. Then I had a go with some white water at Cardington Special points of interest: which I really enjoyed. I must say thank you to the club Meet Dave Barton which has helped me and been very friendly. My dad started Trip reports kayaking with me but he does- n’t like white water so I really Water safety: Entrapment appreciate others who have taken the time to help me with First aid course this. The Wednesday evening David at the Nene White Water Centre series is a good way to develop Club Diary skills in a kayak, and I like going Another trip I have been on is the St. Ives area which was nice. to the sluice where I learnt the Hauxton Mill run to the club- about moving water. house – this was interesting My favourite activity though because part of the Cam was I have been lucky and managed must be white water, Cardington being drained which meant that to get my own boat, a Dagger was a great start but the Nene is Inside this issue: it had a fairly fast flow and we Blast - ‘Blasty’, which is a nice a lot better and thanks to Simon were able to go over the weir at general purpose boat, along and Terry for organising the trips Byron’s.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Off High Road, Roydon, South Norfolk Work Item
    Site: Land off High Road, Roydon, South Norfolk Work Strategic Ecological Item: Assessment Client: GN Rackham & Sons Ltd Author: Dr GW Hopkins CEnv MCIEEM Date: 15 March 2018 Hopkins Ecology Ltd, St George’s Works, 51 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1DD T. 01603 435598 M: 07481 477103 E: [email protected] W: www.hopkinsecology.co.uk Contents Summary 1 1. Introduction 2 Background 2 Site Context and Status 2 Legislation and Planning Policy 2 2. Methods 3 Desk Study 3 Field Survey 3 Guidance 3 Constraints 3 3. Designated Sites 4 Overview 4 Statutory (International and National) Sites 4 Non-Statutory Sites 5 4. Strategic Policies and Projects 6 Green Infrastructure 6 Countryside Projects 6 5. Habitats and Botany 8 Overview 8 Arable 8 Grass Swards 9 Hedgerows 9 Scrub 9 Planted Trees 9 Semi-Natural Broadleaved Woodland 9 Off-Site Woodland 10 6. Scoping for Species of Conservation Concern 11 Plants 11 Bats 11 Great Crested Newts 11 Birds 12 Reptiles 13 Small Mammals 13 Invertebrates 13 7. Evaluation 14 Habitats of Principal Importance 14 Scoping for Species of Conservation Concern 14 Recommendations for Additional Surveys 15 8. Impacts, Mitigation and Enhancements 16 Impacts 16 Mitigation of Construction Impacts 18 Enhancements and Opportunities 18 9. Conclusion 20 10. Appendix 1: Photographs 21 11. Appendix 2: Legislation 23 Summary Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by Bidwells on behalf GN Rackham & Sons Ltd to prepare a strategic ecological assessment of Land of High Road, Roydon, with a view to identifying constraints and opportunities in the context of its promotion for development.
    [Show full text]
  • David Tyldesley and Associates Planning, Landscape and Environmental Consultants
    DAVID TYLDESLEY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNING, LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document Durwyn Liley, Rachel Hoskin, John Underhill-Day & David Tyldesley 1 DRAFT Date: 7th November 2008 Version: Draft Recommended Citation: Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Underhill-Day, J. & Tyldesley, D. (2008). Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document. Footprint Ecology, Wareham, Dorset. Report for Breckland District Council. 2 Summary This document records the results of a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of Breckland District Council’s Core Strategy. The Breckland District lies in an area of considerable importance for nature conservation with a number of European Sites located within and just outside the District. The range of sites, habitats and designations is complex. Taking an area of search of 20km around the District boundary as an initial screening for relevant protected sites the assessment identified five different SPAs, ten different SACs and eight different Ramsar sites. Following on from this initial screening the assessment identifies the following potential adverse effects which are addressed within the appropriate assessment: • Reduction in the density of Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark) near to new housing. • Increased levels of recreational activity resulting in increased disturbance to Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark). • Increased levels of people on and around the heaths, resulting in an increase in urban effects such as increased fire risk, fly-tipping, trampling. • Increased levels of recreation to the Norfolk Coast (including the Wash), potentially resulting in disturbance to interest features and other recreational impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • WETLAND PLANTS – Full Species List (English) RECORDING FORM
    WETLAND PLANTS – full species list (English) RECORDING FORM Surveyor Name(s) Pond name Date e.g. John Smith (if known) Square: 4 fig grid reference Pond: 8 fig grid ref e.g. SP1243 (see your map) e.g. SP 1235 4325 (see your map) METHOD: wetland plants (full species list) survey Survey a single Focal Pond in each 1km square Aim: To assess pond quality and conservation value using plants, by recording all wetland plant species present within the pond’s outer boundary. How: Identify the outer boundary of the pond. This is the ‘line’ marking the pond’s highest yearly water levels (usually in early spring). It will probably not be the current water level of the pond, but should be evident from the extent of wetland vegetation (for example a ring of rushes growing at the pond’s outer edge), or other clues such as water-line marks on tree trunks or stones. Within the outer boundary, search all the dry and shallow areas of the pond that are accessible. Survey deeper areas with a net or grapnel hook. Record wetland plants found by crossing through the names on this sheet. You don’t need to record terrestrial species. For each species record its approximate abundance as a percentage of the pond’s surface area. Where few plants are present, record as ‘<1%’. If you are not completely confident in your species identification put’?’ by the species name. If you are really unsure put ‘??’. After your survey please enter the results online: www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/waternet/ Aquatic plants (submerged-leaved species) Stonewort, Bristly (Chara hispida) Bistort, Amphibious (Persicaria amphibia) Arrowhead (Sagittaria sagittifolia) Stonewort, Clustered (Tolypella glomerata) Crystalwort, Channelled (Riccia canaliculata) Arrowhead, Canadian (Sagittaria rigida) Stonewort, Common (Chara vulgaris) Crystalwort, Lizard (Riccia bifurca) Arrowhead, Narrow-leaved (Sagittaria subulata) Stonewort, Convergent (Chara connivens) Duckweed , non-native sp.
    [Show full text]