DOCSLIB.ORG

SEW FINAL WRMP ER Appendix 5 HRA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEW FINAL WRMP ER Appendix 5 HRA south east water WRMP14 PROJECT NUMBER: 67951 2014 Water Resources Management Plan HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment July 2014 Final WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 DOCUMENT RECORD SHEET Revision Register Version Date Changes Draft Final v1 19/11/2013 For revised WRMP Draft Final v2 25 /11/2013 Minor corrections Final v3 July 2014 Minor changes to reflect Final WRMP Document Issue Register Version Date Changes iiii WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY HRA Stages 1 &2 South East Water is the competent authority responsible for undertaking Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) on its Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) as set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). HRA is a multi-stage process which helps determine likely significant effect and assess adverse impacts on the integrity of a European site. This document details the screening and Appropriate Assessment stages of an HRA undertaken of South East Water’s Water Resource Management Plan 2014 (WRMP14). The purpose of the screening stage of an HRA is to identify all aspects of a plan or project which would potentially have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other aspects of the same plan or other plans or projects. Where no impact is anticipated (usually because there are no ‘pathways’ between the plan or project and a European site, or because an impact is considered to be not significant) the plan or project can be eliminated from further consideration. Appropriate Assessment involves the consideration of the impacts on the integrity of the European site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with regard to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of mitigation options is carried out to determine adverse effect on the integrity of the site. HRA screening has been undertaken on the WRMP in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and following the approach set out for the WRMP process in the UKWIR SEA and HRA guidance (Baker et al, 2012). The approach was also applied through a number of steps during the development of the SEW draft WRMP. There are 43 internationally important nature conservation sites considered by this assessment. The study area included sites within and between the east and west supply areas; downstream of the supply areas; and sites outside the supply areas that support species that could be affected by habitat changes. Factors affecting the integrity of these sites (with regard to their conservation objectives) were reviewed to provide a basis for considering whether the options and plan under consideration might exacerbate any existing adverse trends or affect site integrity. The feasible options were subject to HRA screening to determine if they are likely to adversely affect internationally important nature conservation sites (European sites, candidate and potential European sites, and Ramsar sites) either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. A total of 136 options were assessed during this preliminary screening stage. This screening provided information influencing the option appraisal and selection process for the plan, alongside other issues. Of the 136 feasible options assessed, 27 resource or transfer options (and sub options) have been included in WRMP14. Of these options, 23 are considered unlikely to result in a significant impact to a European site and need not be considered for Appropriate Assessment. These options have been screened out because there are no pathways to European sites and/or the level of impact is not considered to be significant or can be mitigated. iiiiii WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 Following the screening stage including an updated cumulative assessment and review of options amendments, four options at three locations (EF-11, TR-22/TR-22a, and TR- 136a) were considered likely to result in significant effects to a European site either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects, or because sufficient uncertainty existed whereby the potential for significant effects could not be ruled out; these options were subject to Appropriate Assessment. EF-11 (Aylesford water re-use at Aylesford) was screened in due to effluent discharge into the River Medway at East Barming which although located in excess of 15km upstream cannot be ruled out as having a significant effect on the Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar. The scheme is planned to be implemented for 2023. TR-136a (Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer option) was screened in because of the potential extension to the water service reservoir at Surrey Hills which lies wholly within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. The route of the proposed transfer pipeline is also located within close proximity to Windsor Forest and Great Park Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The option is planned for implementation in 2030. TR-22/TR-22a (Detling to Matt’s Hill transfer options) was screened in due to the proximity of the proposed pipelines to North Downs Woodlands SAC and Queendown Warren SAC. These options are planned for implementation in 2022. Due to the complexity of modelling or studies required to assess the significance of impacts associated with EF-11 (to Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar) and TR-136a (to Thames Basin Heaths SPA), and given the late delivery date of these options within the WRMP, a ‘’down the line’’ assessment is proposed. In the event that no adverse effects on integrity cannot be concluded, South East Water commits to bringing forward suitable alternatives with all options subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Significant impacts associated with TR-22 and TR-22a (to Queendown Warren SAC and North Downs Woodland SAC) have been ruled out as the implementation of standard best practice guidelines and pollution prevention measures would be sufficient to ensure that the integrity of the respective sites is not adversely affected. Influencing the development of the WRMP The potential for significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites has been an important consideration all the way through the development of the potential WRMP along with other environmental issues as described in Section 7 of the Environmental Report and Appendix 7 to the WRMP. The key steps were as follows: Initial option identification - potential for direct loss to Natura 2000 sites was one of the criteria used to screen-out potential reservoir locations. New pipeline routes aimed to avoid Natura 2000 sites. These were set as the identification criteria and used in GIS analysis of possible sites/routes. For example, the route for the TR77 pipeline, now part of SW14 (Broad Oak), was routed around the Blean Complex SAC to avoid potential effects. Development of the feasible options list - this was undertaken through further option definition and desk study on environmental constraints and discussion with iviv WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 stakeholders. A number of options with potential significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites were removed as part of this process. Examples include: Faversham groundwater abstraction with potential impacts on the North Kent Marshes; and the Woodgarston, Monkwood and Lasham groundwater abstraction options with potential risk to the River Itchen SAC. In addition a transfer option which was routed through Ashdown Forest SAC following an existing pipeline was identified as being unacceptable and was highlighted as requiring an alternative route. Possible routes to the north of the SAC were added to the option dossier. HRA Stage 1 & 2 - this was undertaken on the Feasible Options List and highlighted the potential for significant effects from the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer reservoir extension, and Aylesford water reuse schemes to Natura 2000 sites. This has highlighted the need to consider variants to the transfer option further and undertake ’down the line’ assessment in AMP6 for both schemes. The Matt’s Hill to Detling transfer option was screened in by the HRA following rerouting to avoid the pipeline passing through an SSSI which had the effect of bringing it closer to a SAC. The plan level Appropriate Assessment for this option is included in the HRA Report. This identified mitigation is required to avoid significant effects during construction which are covered by the option costs. ‘Down the line’ assessment – the HRA Report identified that ’down the line’ Appropriate Assessment would be required for Aylesford water reuse and the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer. These will be undertaken in the next AMP/WRMP cycle. If this shows that it would not be possible to avoid a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, an alternative option (or options) that has been screened as not likely to have a significant effect will be brought in. Triggers for bringing in alternatives options – these are identified in Section 8 of the Environmental Report and the WRMP, including the need to bring in alternative assessment where ’down the line’ Appropriate Assessment indicates that significant effects could not be avoided. AMP 6 Additional studies on key Preferred Plan options - a range of studies and investigations have been identified in the WRMP and Environmental Report as being required during AMP6. These include more detailed feasibility studies for the strategic options, the East Kent Strategy and further transfer options. These will incorporate the ’down the line’ assessments identified in the WRMP14 HRA and additional HRA for any new East Kent Strategy options. The SEA and HRA have influenced the option costs to ensure allowance is included for undertaking HRA and for implementing required mitigation and enhancements, for example the cost for taking forward the Aylesford water reuse scheme specifically includes an allowance for the ’down the line’ assessment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • May 2011) Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework
    Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Kent Minerals And Waste Development Framework Mineral Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (November 2011) 1 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Produced by : Planning and Environment Environment and Enterprise Kent County Council Invicta House Tel: 01622 221610 County Hall Email: [email protected] Maidstone Web: www.kent.gov.uk/mwdf Kent ME14 1XX 2 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Contents Page 1 Abbreviations 4 2 Introduction 5 3 Site Proposals 7 4 Responses for Mineral Sites DPD 9 5 Soft Sand Sites for Consideration 11 6 Sharp Sand and Gravel Sites for Consideration 33 7 Crushed Rock Sites for Consideration 53 8 Silica Sand Sites for Consideration 57 9 Chalk Sites for Consideration 61 10 Brickearth Sites for Consideration 67 11 Clay Sites for Consideration 71 12 Mineral Import Sites for Consideration 73 13 Secondary & Recycled Aggregates Sites for Consideration 75 14 Glossary 101 3 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Abbreviations AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty MGB Metropolitan Green Belt AQMA Air Quality Management Area MOD Ministry of Defence BAP Biodiversity Action Plan NNR National Nature Reserve BOA Biodiversity Opportunity Area PINS Planning Inspectorate CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England PPS Planning Policy Statement DPD Development Plan Documents PROW Public Right of Way SA Sustainability Appraisal
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Document for Environment & Transport Cabinet Committee, 08
    ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT CABINET COMMITTEE Wednesday, 8th September, 2021 10.00 am Online AGENDA ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT CABINET COMMITTEE Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 10.00 am Ask for: Matthew Dentten Online Telephone: 03000 414534 Membership (16) Conservative (12): Mr S Holden (Chairman), Mr R Love, OBE (Vice-Chairman), Mr N Baker, Mr C Beart, Mr T Bond, Mr N Collor, Mr D Crow- Brown, Mr M Dendor, Mr A Hills, Mrs S Hudson, Mrs L Parfitt- Reid and Mr D Watkins Labour (2): Ms M Dawkins, Mr B Lewis Liberal Democrat (1): Mr I Chittenden Green and Mr M Baldock Independents (1): UNRESTRICTED ITEMS (During these items the meeting is likely to be open to the public) 1 Introduction/Webcast announcement 2 Apologies and Substitutes To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present. 3 Declarations of Interest by Members in items on the Agenda To receive any declarations of interest made by Members in relation to any matter on the agenda. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared. 4 Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2021 (Pages 1 - 10) To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record. 5 Verbal Updates by Cabinet Members and Corporate Director 6 21/00073 - Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 - 5 Year Review of 2016 adopted Plan (Pages 11 - 186) 7 Approach to monitoring Net Zero Target (Pages 187 - 192) 8 Kent and Medway Energy and Low Emissions Strategy - Progress Update (Pages 193 - 202) 9 Heritage Conservation Strategy (Pages
    [Show full text]
  • Appropriate Assessment / Habitats Regulations Assessment
    Appropriate assessment / Habitats Regulations Assessment Riki Therivel, Levett-Therivel • What is AA/HRA? • Four steps in HRA – Screening – Appropriate assessment – Alternatives, IROPI, compensatory measures • UK examples • ‘People Over Wind’ WHAT IS AA / HRA? Slavonian Grebe North Atlantic wet heaths European dry heaths Avocet Southern damselfly • Tests impact of project or plan on SPAs/SACs • Concludes with yes/no statement: will project or plan have significant impact on European site? • It is very precautionary Required by European Habitats Directive AA of projects carried out for about 15 years European Court of Justice ruling Oct. 2005: UK has not implemented Habitats Directive Articles 6.3 and 6.4 correctly re. plans Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 transposes requirements into UK law 6.3 Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives... the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.. 6.3 Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in viewa European of the ‘site’ site's is an SPA conservation objectives..
    [Show full text]
  • English Nature Research Report
    Vatural Area: 33. East Anglian Plain Geological Sigaificance: Outstanding (provisional) General geological character: The solid geology of the East Anglian Natural Area is mainly underlain by Jpper Cretaceous chalk. This very pure limestone was laid down on the floor of a tropical sea between 97 md 74 Ma. Locally the chalk is rich in fossils including sea-urchins and bivalves. Overlying much of the ;halk is a complex sequence of Quaternary deposits (deposited over the last 2 Ma) showing changes in Aimate and environment from both cold (glacial) and temperate (interglacial) periods. These sediments hostcompletely obscure the underlying chalk and it is their composition which gives the Natural Area its :haacter. The base of the Quaternary sequence is the early Pleistocene Crag deposits which are marine jcdiments of*shelly muds and sands, often containing temperate marinc molluscan faunas. However, the nost extensive and thickest Quaternary sediments consist of glacial sands, gravels and clays deposited by the 4nglian ice sheet as it advanced across the area around 300,000 to 250,000 years BP. These deposits are ;ollectivcly known as 'boulder clay' and their calcareous nature reflects glacial erosion and transportation of he chalk bedrock beneath. The Anglian glaciation interrupted a well-developed fluvial network of eastward flowing rivers, and patches of these preglacial river gravels are still found within the area. Many localitites show river gravels related to the early development of the River Thames, which crossed this area prior to jiversion by the Anglian ice sheet. These sites are important for Quaternary stratigraphy (including records Jf climate change) because they can be correlated with sedirnents in other parts of Britain and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1999 No. 2170 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENGLAND The Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 Made ---- 29th July 1999 Laid before Parliament 3rd August 1999 Coming into force 1st September 1999 The Secretary of State– having consulted the committee established(a) under section 140(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990(b); having published a notice in the London Gazette as required by section 140(6)(b) of that Act; having considered the representations made to him in accordance with that notice; considering it appropriate to make these Regulations for the purpose of preventing the substance or articles specified in them from causing pollution of the environment and harm to the health of animals; in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 140(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following Regulations: Citation, commencement and extent 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 and shall come into force on 1st September 1999. (2) These Regulations shall extend to England only. Interpretation 2. In these Regulations– “authorised person” means a person authorised under regulation 4(1) below; “lead shot” means any shot made of– (a) lead, or (b) any alloy or compound of lead where lead comprises more than 1% of that alloy or compound; “premises” includes any land, vehicle or vessel, but does not include premises used for residential purposes; “shot gun” means a smooth-bore gun but does not include any shot gun chambered for 9 millimetre or smaller rim-fire cartridges; (a) S.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Countryside Access Improvement Plan 2007-2017
    KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Countryside Access Improvement Plan 2007-2017 COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PLAN I 1 CONTENTS I Foreword 4 II Vision 5 1. Why Produce a Countryside Access Improvement Plan? 6 1.1 Introduction 7 1.2 The Plan 7 1.3 Methodology 7 2. Policy Context 9 2.1 Overview 10 2.2 Vision for Kent 11 2.3 Towards 2010 11 2.4 The Local Transport Plan 11 2.5 Walking Strategy 13 2.6 Cycling Strategy 13 2.7 Kent & Medway Structure Plan 13 2.8 South East Regional Plan 14 2.9 Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 14 2.10 Kent High Weald AONB Management Plan 15 3. Kent “The Garden of England” 16 3.1 A Picture of Kent 17 3.2 The Natural Environment and Heritage 17 3.3 Transport and Population 20 4. Current Access Provision in Kent 23 4.1 Public Rights of Way 24 4.2 Summary of Kent’s Rights of Way Network 25 4.3 Asset Statistics 25 4.4 Promoted Routes 28 4.5 The North Downs Way 29 4.6 Permissive Access 30 4.7 Roads 30 4.8 Accessible Green Space 30 4.9 Country Parks, Picnic Sites and Nature Reserves 31 4.10 Open Access 33 4.11 Village Greens and Commons 33 4.12 Woodland 33 4.13 Coastal 35 4.14 Riverside and Inland Water 36 5. Countryside Access Management 38 5.1 Kent County Council 39 5.2 District Councils 42 5.3 Parish Councils 42 5.4 Countryside Management Projects 42 5.5 Voluntary and Charity Sector 42 COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PLAN I 2 5.6 Neighbouring Authorities 43 5.7 Landowner Issues 44 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Thanet Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment
    Thanet District Council Thanet Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Information to support an assessment under Regulation 105 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited – July 2018 • © Wood Environment & lnfrastructure Solutions UK Limited wood. Report for Copyright and non-disclosure notice Jo Wadey The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright Planning Officer owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Thanet District Council Solutions UK Limited 2018) save to the extent that copyright PO Box 9 has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Cecil Street Wood under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright Margate in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior Kent written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose CT9 1XZ indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may Main contributors constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may Mike Frost otherwiseprejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this Mike Fro disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Kent's Wildlife
    TheKent’s State of Wildlife in 2011 Kent Biodiversity Partnership Action for Kent’s wildlife Contents Introduction 1 Kent’s Butterflies Mike Easterbrook Butterfly Conservation -Kent 2 Kent’s Moths Ian Ferguson & David Gardner Butterfly Conservation -Kent 5 Kent’s Amphibians and Reptiles Dr Lee Brady Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group 10 Kent’s Birds Andrew Henderson Kent Ornithological Society 18 Kent’s Bats Shirley Thompson Kent Bat Group 26 Kent’s Wild Plants Richard Moyse Kent Wildlife Trust 33 Kent’s Marine Wildlife Bryony Chapman, Kent Wildlife Trust 39 The State of Kent’s Wildlife in 2011 Kent is one the UK’s most wildlife-rich bird species, and two species of bat all counties, a result of its varied geology, became extinct in the county. This long coastline, landscape history, excludes consideration of groups not southerly location and proximity to covered in the following chapters; for mainland Europe. Its important wildlife example, the Red Squirrel and 3 species habitats include estuaries, chalk cliffs, of bumblebee were also lost during the woodlands, and chalk downland, and 20th century. In addition to this, many of encompass some of the South East’s the species that remain have seen big most iconic landscapes, such as the population declines, including many shingle headland of Dungeness and species of butterflies and moths, birds the White Cliffs of Dover. and wildflowers of farmland, wetland plants, Adders and Common Toads. This publication has been prepared by Kent natural historians to give an As seen in the following chapters, the outline of the changing fortunes of causes of these losses and declines are Kent’s wild plants and animals over the various.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan
    The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan A framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife Produced by Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group © Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, 1997 c/o Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX. Tel: (01622) 221537 CONTENTS 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN 1 1.1 Conserving Biodiversity 1 1.2 Why have a Kent Biodiversity Action Plan? 1 1.3 What is a Biodiversity Action Plan? 1.4 The approach taken to produce the Kent Plan 2 1.5 The Objectives of the Kent BAP 2 1.6 Rationale for selection of habitat groupings and individual species for plans 3 2. LINKS WITH OTHER INITIATIVES 7 2.1 Local Authorities and Local Agenda 21 7 2.2 English Nature's 'Natural Areas Strategy' 9 3. IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.1 The Role of Lead Agencies and Responsible Bodies 10 3.2 The Annual Reporting Process 11 3.3 Partnerships 11 3.4 Identifying Areas for Action 11 3.5 Methodology for Measuring Relative Biodiversity 11 3.6 Action Areas 13 3.7 Taking Action Locally 13 3.8 Summary 14 4. GENERIC ACTIONS 15 2.1 Policy 15 2.2 Land Management 16 2.3 Advice/Publicity 16 2.4 Monitoring and Research 16 5. HABITAT ACTION PLANS 17 3.1 Habitat Action Plan Framework 18 3.2 Habitat Action Plans 19 Woodland & Scrub 20 Wood-pasture & Historic Parkland 24 Old Orchards 27 Hedgerows 29 Lowland Farmland 32 Urban Habitats 35 Acid Grassland 38 Neutral & Marshy Grassland 40 Chalk Grassland 43 Heathland & Mire 46 Grazing Marsh 49 Reedbeds 52 Rivers & Streams 55 Standing Water (Ponds, ditches & dykes, saline lagoons, lakes & reservoirs) 58 Intertidal Mud & Sand 62 Saltmarsh 65 Sand Dunes 67 Vegetated Shingle 69 Maritime Cliffs 72 Marine Habitats 74 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 113. North Kent Plain Area Profile: Supporting Documents
    National Character 113. North Kent Plain Area profile: Supporting documents www.gov.uk/natural-england 1 National Character 113. North Kent Plain Area profile: Supporting documents Introduction National Character Areas map As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment 1 2 3 White Paper , Biodiversity 2020 and the European Landscape Convention , we North are revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas (NCAs). These are East areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good Yorkshire decision-making framework for the natural environment. & The North Humber NCA profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform their West decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a landscape East scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage broader Midlands partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will also help West Midlands to inform choices about how land is managed and can change. East of England Each profile includes a description of the natural and cultural features that shape our landscapes, how the landscape has changed over time, the current key London drivers for ongoing change, and a broad analysis of each area’s characteristics and ecosystem services. Statements of Environmental Opportunity (SEOs) are South East suggested, which draw on this integrated information. The SEOs offer guidance South West on the critical issues, which could help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future.
    [Show full text]
  • Thanet Coast Special Area of Conservation 2011 Intertidal Monitoring
    THANET COAST SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION 2011 INTERTIDAL MONITORING Thanet Coast Special Area of Conservation: 2011 intertidal monitoring. I.Tittley, B. Chapman, B. Hitchin, C.J.H. Spurrier, Kent Wildlife Trust T. Child Thanet Coast Project February 2012 A research report for Natural England Thanet Coast Project c/o Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent CT9 1XZ 01843 577672 [email protected] - 1 - CONTENTS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Aims and objectives 5 2 METHODS 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Fieldwork schedule 7 2.3 Caves and cliffs 7 2.4 Reefs 7 2.5 Study area maps 9 3 RESULTS 15 3.1 Quadrat studies 15 3.2 Revised biotope maps 18 3.3 Climate change indicator species 38 4 DISCUSSION 39 4.1 Cave and cliff biotopes 39 4.2 Foreshore reef biotopes 39 4.3 Important biotopes 39 4.4 Re-classification of littoral cliff and cave biotopes 41 4.5 Climate change indicator species 43 4.6 Non native species 45 5 CONCLUSION 48 5.1 Favourable condition 48 5.2 Future monitoring 48 6 REFERENCES 50 APPENDIX 1 - Study area data 53 Epple Bay (EB) 53 Fulsam Rock (FR) 55 White Ness and Botany Bay (WN) 66 North Foreland (NF) 85 Dumpton and Ramsgate (DG) 97 Pegwell (PB) 109 APPENDIX 2 - List of photographs on DVD 115 APPENDIX 3 - List of algae recorded at Fulsam Rock 116 APPENDIX 4 – Contents of DVD 117 APPENDIX 5 – Point to point biotope surveys 118 - 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The results of monitoring ‘reef’ and ‘sea-cave’ features in the Thanet coast cSAC in autumn 2011 are reported.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentish Stour Catchment Management P Consultation
    NRA Southern 11 National Rivers Author'u Informatlcn Centre KENTISH STOUR Head Office CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT P Class N o---------------------- CONSULTATION REPORT Accession No J).QhLOf.___ NRA National Rivers Authority Southern Region MISSION STATEMENT The NRA’s mission is : "We will protect and improve the water environment by the effective management of water resources and by substantial reductions in pollution. We will aim to provide effective defence for people and property against flooding from rivers and the sea. In discharging our duties we will operate openly and balance the interests of all who benefit from and use rivers, groundwaters, estuaries, and coastal waters. We will be businesslike, efficient and caring towards our employees”. Our Aims are to : Achieve a continuing overall improvement in the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters, through the control of pollution. Manage water resources to achieve the right balance between the needs of the environment and those of the abstractors. Provide effective defence for people and property against flooding from rivers and the sea. Provide adequate arrangements for flood forecasting and warning. Maintain, improve and develop fisheries. Develop the amenity and recreation potential of inland and coastal waters and associated lands. Conserve and enhance wildlife, landscape and archaeological features associated with inland and coastal waters of England and Wales. Improve and maintain inland waters and their facilities for use by the public where the NRA is the navigation authority. Ensure that dischargers pay the costs of the consequences of their discharges, and, as far as possible, to recover the costs of environment improvements from those who benefit.
    [Show full text]