DOCSLIB.ORG

Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Distribution Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Distribution Assessment Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Distribution Assessment Official Sensitive (Sensitive information redacted) 13 February 2020 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Distribution Assessment Prepared for: Severn Trent Water Ltd 2 St John’s Street Coventry CV1 2LZ Report reference: 64116AB R36rev1, February 2020 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Report status: Final rev1 CONFIDENTIAL New Zealand House, 160-162 Abbey Foregate, Registered Office: Shrewsbury, Shropshire Stantec UK Ltd SY2 6FD Buckingham Court Kingsmead Business Park Telephone: +44 (0)1743 276 100 Frederick Place, London Road Facsimile: +44 (01743 248 600 High Wycombe HP11 1JU Registered in England No. 1188070 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Page i Distribution Assessment Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Distribution Assessment OFFICIAL SENSITIVE This document is classified by Severn Trent Water Ltd (STWL) as Official Sensitive and the information contained within is sensitive. Distribution of this document must be restricted and managed within organisations given access to it. If in doubt, please seek STWL’s permission before this document is shared with third parties. This report has been prepared by Stantec UK Ltd (Stantec) in its professional capacity as environmental specialists, with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the agreed scope and terms of contract and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with its client and is provided by Stantec solely for the internal use of its client. The advice and opinions in this report should be read and relied on only in the context of the report as a whole, taking account of the terms of reference agreed with the client. The findings are based on the information made available to Stantec at the date of the report (and will have been assumed to be correct) and on current UK standards, codes, technology and practices as at that time. They do not purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. New information or changes in conditions and regulatory requirements may occur in future, which will change the conclusions presented here. This report is confidential to the client. The client may submit the report to regulatory bodies, where appropriate. Should the client wish to release this report to any other third party for that party’s reliance, Stantec may, by prior written agreement, agree to such release, provided that it is acknowledged that Stantec accepts no responsibility of any nature to any third party to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Stantec accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred as a result, and the third party does not acquire any rights whatsoever, contractual or otherwise, against Stantec except as expressly agreed with Stantec in writing. Report Reference: 64116AB R36rev1 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Report Status: Final rev1 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Page ii Distribution Assessment Name Signature Author Adam Sutcliffe, Thomas Brook APEM Checked by Rick Hayes APEM Dan Cadman Reviewed by Paul Daily Revision record: Reference Date Status Comment Author Checker Reviewer Issued to 64116AB 19/03/2019 Draft First draft AS/TB RH DC/PD STWL* R36D1 64116AB Second 23/05/2019 Draft AS/TB RH DC/PD STWL/EA** R36D2 draft 64116AB 07/06/2019 Draft Third draft AS/TB RH DC/PD STWL/EA R36D3 64116AB 04/10/2019 Draft Final draft AS/TB RH DC/PD STWL/EA R36D4 Final for 64116AB 19/11/2019 Final client AS/TB RH DC/PD STWL R36 checks 64116AB 20/12/2019 Final rev1 Final AS/TB RH DC/PD STWL/EA R36rev1 *Severn Trent Water Limited. **Environment Agency Report Reference: 64116AB R36rev1 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Report Status: Final rev1 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Page iii Distribution Assessment Executive Summary The River Ashop, River Noe and Jaggers Clough transfers are important sources of water to the Derwent Valley Reservoirs. Abstraction at the three structures must cease when inflows reach predetermined conditions, stipulated in the associated abstraction licence. Impact Assessment and Options Appraisal undertaken during AMP5 and AMP6 resulted in recommendations to change conditions on these abstraction licences under normal operation. This report complements those studies, recommending how compensation flows at the structures should be operated under natural circumstances when inflows cannot simultaneously maintain recommended flows in the River Ashop, River Noe and Jaggers Clough. This report does not recommend changes to the operation of these structures under typical climatic conditions. Naturally arising circumstances during which inflows cannot simultaneously maintain recommended flows on the River Ashop, the River Noe and the Jaggers Clough can occur in dry years between late spring and mid- autumn. There is no storage at any of the structures, meaning that during such circumstances, trade-offs may be needed in maintaining the ecology of the three rivers. Historically, support has been provided to the Jaggers Clough at the expense of flows in the River Noe or, less often, the River Ashop. This support has maintained flows in the Jaggers Clough at rates several times greater than those naturally expected in this stream during dry periods and can leave very small flows on the main stem of the Rivers Ashop and Noe. The Jaggers Clough is valued as a brown trout nursery, and as such its importance to the River Noe fishery may be greater than suggested by its size. Even so, analysis of habitat and experience during the very dry summer of 2018 do not suggest long-lasting impacts, and in any case, it is not standard practice to transfer raw water between catchments to support ecology in a recipient waterbody. Moreover, the historic practice of reallocating flows risks of deterioration in Water Framework Directive (WFD) status in the waterbodies downstream. The WFD makes provision for effects of naturally arising low flows, and in the absence of intervention, temporary impacts caused by natural low flows do not constitute a deterioration in status. This may not be the case were STWL to reallocate flows, regardless of the intention behind the reallocation. At the Ashop impoundment, the requirement to cease abstraction into the diversion channel is also problematic operationally. Any water transferred to the Jaggers Clough must also use this offtake. Under natural circumstances in which compensation flows on the Jaggers Clough cannot be met from the Noe and Jaggers combined inflow, the requirement to cease abstraction into the diversion channel can therefore be at odds with that to maintain the compensation on the Jaggers Clough. This report therefore recommends that support to the Jaggers Clough during naturally arising circumstances of low inflow any diversion of flow from the River Ashop to the Jaggers Clough should cease and support to the Jaggers Clough should be sourced from the River Noe in reduced quantity. To avoid rapid changes in flow, reductions should be preceded by a preparatory change implemented when there is sufficient flow in the River Noe to prevent rapid changes in both watercourses. Recommendations for operation of the compensation during naturally arising circumstances of low flows make provision for future changes as prescribed by the Notional Solution at these sites. However, under current provisions: • Once combined baseflows to the River Noe impoundment and Jaggers Clough compensation fall to 18 Ml/d, support to the Jaggers Clough can be reduced to maintain flows on the Jaggers Clough from 10 Ml/d to 6 Ml/d. If this results in temporary baseflow increases above 10 Ml/d on the River Noe these should be passed at the impoundment and not abstracted. • Once flows to the River Noe impoundment and Jaggers Clough fall to 13 Ml/d, support from the River Noe can be reduced to maintain flows on the Jaggers Clough at 2 Ml/d. The effects of any such changes should also be monitored. Report Reference: 64116AB R36rev1 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Report Status: Final rev1 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Page iv Distribution Assessment Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 This report 1 1.2 Previous studies 1 2 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 2 2.1 Abstractions on the River Ashop, River Noe and Jaggers Clough 2 2.2 Current licence requirements 2 2.3 Recommended licence changes 3 2.4 Limitations on operational flexibility 4 3 ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 5 3.1 Potential effects on ecology 5 3.2 Character of reaches 6 3.3 Water Framework Directive 7 4 EFFECTS OF THE 2018 DRY PERIOD 9 4.1 Flows 9 4.2 Macroinvertebrates 9 4.3 Fish 11 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 5.1 Summary 15 5.1.1 Normal operation 15 5.1.2 Operation during natural circumstances of low flow 15 5.1.3 Potential impacts 16 5.2 Recommendations 17 5.2.1 Phasing of flow changes – current licence conditions 18 5.2.2 Phasing of flow changes post implementation of the Notional Solution 18 5.2.3 Simulation of recommendations during 2018 19 REFERENCES 21 Report Reference: 64116AB R36rev1 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Report Status: Final rev1 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: River Noe and River Ashop Low Flow Page v Distribution Assessment ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 2.1: Schematic of Ashop-Noe-Jaggers system 3 Illustration 4.1 Macroinvertebrate data for the Ashop and Noe. 10 Illustration 4.2. Standardised fish density (per 100 m2), Ashop d/s Alport confluence (E3-06) 12 Illustration 4.3. Standardised fish density (per 100 m2), Noe d/s impoundment (E2-03) 13 Illustration 4.4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State of Nature in the Peak District What We Know About the Key Habitats and Species of the Peak District
    Nature Peak District State of Nature in the Peak District What we know about the key habitats and species of the Peak District Penny Anderson 2016 On behalf of the Local Nature Partnership Contents 1.1 The background .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 The need for a State of Nature Report in the Peak District ............................................................ 6 1.3 Data used ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.4 The knowledge gaps ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Background to nature in the Peak District....................................................................................... 8 1.6 Habitats in the Peak District .......................................................................................................... 12 1.7 Outline of the report ...................................................................................................................... 12 2 Moorlands .............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.1 Key points ..................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Nature and value ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Common Sandpipers Also Dive to Escape Danger: in England
    52 Wader Study Group Bulletin wastinging a day-oldchick beside the GlentressWater, Scot- a shortdistance underwater (water depthranging from 2 to tish Borders,the soleparent guarding the chick was giving 30 cm), and emergedunscathed. alarmcalls and performing the broken-wingdistraction dis- play on the oppositeshore, about 6 m away.Suddenly a male Minton, C. 2001. Waders diving and swimming underwateras a means SparrowhawkAccipiter nisus appearedand stoopedat the of escape.Wader Study Group Bull. 96: 86. adultsandpiper, which promptly dived into the stream,swam Common Sandpipers also dive to escape danger: in England D.W. YALDEN School of BiologicalSciences, 3.238 StopfordBuilding, VictoriaUniversity of Manchester, M13 9PT, UK, e-maih d. w.yalden @man. ac. uk The note by Clive Minton (Minton 2001) recordingdiving On 12 July 1997, also on the River Ashop, a recently to escapepredation or captureby OystercatchersHaema- fledgedbird was retrappedin a mistnetset acrossthe fiver. topus ostralegus and a Black-winged Stilt Himantopus On releaseit flew only about20 m beforeflopping into the himantopusprompts me to report five similar recordsfor water and swimmingto hide amongthe rootsof a bankside CommonSandpiper Actitis hypoleucos. aldertree. At 39 g, andwith bill andwing lengthsof 22 mm On 2 April 1992, on our River Ashopstudy site in Derby- and 105mm respectively,it appearedto be only 21 daysold, shire, England (Yalden 1986), I heard a pair of Common but hadbeen finged at about5 daysold on 13 June1997, and Sandpipersin courtship,trilling on
    [Show full text]
  • River Ashop & River Noe Silt Issues
    www.WaterProjectsOnline.com Water Treatment & Supply River Ashop & River Noe Silt Issues improving the transfer of raw water to Bamford WTW in the Peak District by Tony Heaney BSc CEng MICE evern Trent Water treats 150Ml/d of raw water at Bamford WTW to provide potable water to large parts of the East Midlands. Raw water is also used to power turbines at Ladybower dam. Water for this plant is drawn from Sthree reservoirs - Ladybower, Derwent and Howden - supplied directly by the River Derwent catchment in the upper Derwent Valley. Water cascades into Derwent and Ladybower reservoirs from Howden. The water supply is of major strategic importance, and subsequent to a detailed review, the need for significant maintenance investment on the assets was identified. This project involved maintenance of the weirs and aqueducts to extend their life and to improve the transfer of raw water. River Noe extraction weir completion - Courtesy of NMCNomenca The reservoirs its natural course along the valley. As a result the level difference The Derwent and Howden Reservoirs were built in the early 20th between the aqueduct and the river increases downstream with century. To provide an additional source of water, flows from the the aqueduct supported at the top of a steep slope up to 20m high. River Ashop, above Ladybower, are diverted into the Derwent Reservoir via an aqueduct from a weir higher up the Ashop valley. Over time the river has eroded the bottom of the slope causing problems of stability and threatening the integrity of the structure. Ladybower Reservoir was constructed during the Second World War.
    [Show full text]
  • Shire Hill Quarry, Glossop, Derbys
    ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE: SHIRE HILL QUARRY, GLOSSOP, DERBYS. NGR: SK 0540 9445 MPA: Peak District National Park Authority Planning Ref.: HPK1197168 PCAS Job No.: 808 PCAS Site Code: SHGD11 Report prepared for Mineral Surveying Services Limited On behalf of Marchington Stone Ltd., By, K.D. Francis (BA MIfA) August-September 2011 Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd 47, Manor Road Saxilby Lincoln LN1 2HX Tel. 01522 703800 Fax. 01522 703656 Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd Contents List of Figures...........................................................................................................................2 List of Plates.............................................................................................................................3 Non-Technical Summary ..........................................................................................................5 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................6 2.0 Planning Background and Proposals .............................................................................6 3.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................7 4.0 The Site .........................................................................................................................8 4.1 Site Location ..................................................................................................... 8 4.2
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptive Management Plan – Rivers Ashop and Noe
    Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: Adaptive Management Plan – Rivers Ashop and Noe Official Sensitive (Sensitive information redacted) February 2020 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: Adaptive Management Plan – Rivers Ashop and Noe Prepared for: Severn Trent Water Ltd 2 St John’s Street Coventry CV1 2LZ Report reference: 64116AB R47, February 2020 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Report status: Final CONFIDENTIAL New Zealand House, 160-162 Abbey Foregate, Registered Office: Shrewsbury, Shropshire Stantec UK Ltd SY2 6FD Buckingham Court Kingsmead Business Park Telephone: +44 (0)1743 276 100 Frederick Place, London Road Facsimile: +44 (01743 248 600 High Wycombe HP11 1JU Registered in England No. 1188070 Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: Adaptive Management Plan – Rivers Ashop and Noe Page i Severn Trent Water AMP6 Low Flows Programme: Adaptive Management Plan – Rivers Ashop and Noe OFFICIAL SENSITIVE This document is classified by Severn Trent Water Ltd (STWL) as Official Sensitive and the information contained within is sensitive. Distribution of this document must be restricted and managed within organisations given access to it. If in doubt, please seek STWL’s permission before this document is shared with third parties. This report has been prepared by Stantec UK Ltd (Stantec) in its professional capacity as environmental specialists, with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the agreed scope and terms of contract and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with its client and is provided by Stantec solely for the internal use of its client. The advice and opinions in this report should be read and relied on only in the context of the report as a whole, taking account of the terms of reference agreed with the client.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Visit River Noe, Derbyshire July 2018
    Advisory Visit River Noe, Derbyshire July 2018 1.0 Introduction This report is the output of a site visit undertaken by Tim Jacklin of the Wild Trout Trust to the River Noe, Edale, Derbyshire on 10th July, 2018. Comments in this report are based on observations on the day of the site visit and discussions with the landowner. Normal convention is applied throughout the report with respect to bank identification, i.e. the banks are designated left hand bank (LHB) or right hand bank (RHB) whilst looking downstream. 2.0 Catchment / Fishery Overview The River Noe is located in north Derbyshire, within the Peak District National Park, close to Ladybower Reservoir. It rises in the Vale of Edale near Kinder Scout and flows south-east to join the River Derwent a short distance downstream of Ladybower Reservoir dam. Angling on much of the river is controlled by Peak Forest Angling Club (PFAC) and the Wild Trout Trust have carried out previous advisory and practical visits to other sections of the river on behalf of the club. This visit was at the request of the adjacent landowner who has recently acquired a property alongside this section of river; this section of river forms part of Beat 11 of PFAC’s fishery. The River Noe is an upland river, running off the shales and sandstones of the Dark Peak. It has good water quality and generally good in-stream habitat, which support healthy stocks of wild brown trout and, in the lower reaches, grayling. This is reflected in the environmental monitoring data collected by the Environment Agency (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Derbyshire Derwent Catchment Partnership Leaflet
    k u . g r o . t s u r t e f i l d l i w e r i h s y b r e d . w w w k u . g r o . t s u r t e f i l d l i w e r i h s y b r e d . w w w k u . g r o . t s u r t e f i l d l i w e r i h s y b r e d . w w w 8 8 1 1 8 8 3 7 7 1 0 k u . o c . t w e r i h s y b r e d @ s e i r i u q n e r e p p i D . a e r a g n i d n u o r r u s d n a e t i S e g a t i r e H . t n e m n o r i v n e d l r o W s l l i M y e l l a V t n e w r e D e h t n o t c a p m i l a m i n i m e v a h e h t n i y l r a l u c i t r a p , s i h t e t a g i t i k m u . o y e h t t a h t e r u s n e o t s a e r a n a b r u d n a e g a n a m o t s y a w d n c a .
    [Show full text]
  • Rivers Alport and Ashop Monitoring Report
    The Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop Monitoring Report Funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; administered by the Environment Agency; managed by the National Trust; and prepared by the Moors for the Future Partnership on behalf of the National Trust. Prepared by: Moors for the Future Partnership The Moorland Centre, Edale, Hope Valley, Derbyshire, S33 7ZA, UK T: 01629 816 581 M: 07972 734077 E: [email protected] W: www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk Suggested citation: Crouch, T., Walker, J.S. and Morley, K. (2015) Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop Monitoring Report. Moors for the Future Partnership, Edale. 2 | P a g e Contents 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 10 2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Water Framework Directive .................................................................................... 12 3. Site description and summary of work ............................................................................ 14 3.1. Package 1 – the Edge, Kinder Plateau ...................................................................... 14 3.2. Package 2 – the wider Alport and Ashop catchments ............................................. 14 3.3. Package 3 – Seal Edge, Kinder Plateau .................................................................... 14 4. Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Derbyshire County
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 To Holmfirth 351 Holme Greenfield DERBYSHIRE A Public Transport Map A Pennine Way 351 Trans Pennine Trail Mossley Trans Pennine Trail Woodhead M1 to Leeds Crowden Langsett Tameside Reservoir Hospital 236 Torside Underbank Ashton- 237 Pennine Reservoir Reservoir under- Stalybridge Bridleway 236 Lyne 237 l a Torside n a C Trans Pennine To Manchester 236 t Trail 351 s 237 e Guide r 237 Tintwistle o SOUTH YORKSHIRE Bridge F Bleaklow R k i a v e Broomhead e P r 237 Reservoir 236 D 237 Hollingworth o Flowery K n Hyde Padfield P A R Field Pennine A L North Hadfield Way O N B Newton Mottram A T I B 236 351 N 341 Godley Old T More Hall Hyde 341 Glossop I C Reservoir Hyde 341 Dinting T R Trans Pennine Central 341 341 394 I S Trail 341 341 D 341 K Upper Derwent 341 341 Hattersley 341 Gamesley A (Kings Tree) Glossop 236 P E 341 236,237 237 To GREATER Broadbottom 341 Manchester w ro 394 Simmondley MANCHESTER e th Charlesworth 61,341 E r Derwent Sheffield & South Woodley e 351,394 Sheffield v 394 orkshire Navigation Bredbury i Reservoir Y R 43,44,50,50A,53 Chisworth R 65,80,218,252 Romiley i Northern M18 to Doncaster 61 ve r Middlewood 271,272,273 General 394 Lo Hospital xl 274,275,X17,X30 ey Meadowhall Derwent Dams Lane Ends Grouse Inn m Goyt ra r rt e e iv p R u Marple 394 Derwent S To Stockport Marple Fairholmes S u Kinder p Riv e Bridge er r A H1 ,H2 t s r 358 Marple 61 ho L a Offerton p ad m yb Rosehill ow SOUTH 273 e Shalesmoor Marple Kinder r C Ulley C To Little Hayfield Reservoir H1 R e Country Stockport Goyt s 275 Trans R
    [Show full text]
  • Derwent Valley (Ashop and Noe) up Front Permitting (UFP) - Summary
    Derwent Valley (Ashop and Noe) Up Front Permitting (UFP) - Summary To vary licence number 3/28/38/18 Derwent Valley The UFP proposal for the NEP is to change the compensation requirements from the River Ashop, River Noe and Jaggers Clough. The changes are within Schedule A Section 9 Further Conditions and in Additional Information at the end of the licence document. The proposals are: River Ashop To increase the compensation release from 5 Ml/d to 8.5 Ml/d as a mean monthly minimum. With the daily mean flow no less than 5.5 M/d River Noe/Jaggers Clough To vary the allocation of the current 20 Ml/d (10 Ml/d Noe plus 10 Ml/d J Clough) in two stages 1. Increase the Noe to 12 Ml/d and reduce J Clough to 8 Ml/d 2. Increase the Noe to 14 Ml/d and reduce J Clough to 6 Ml/d Variations will be needed to Sections 9.3, 9.4. and 9.5 as well as to the Additional Information section regarding low upstream flows The details of the proposals are in the two recent Stantec/APEM reports • Low Flow Distribution Assessment • Adaptive Management Plan In addition • A new time limit will be agreed • A Section 20 Agreement will be required to manage the Adaptive Management plan to include details of monitoring, reporting and assessing • An emergency condition may be considered whereby water from the Ashop Diversion can be transferred to support Jaggers Clough. • It is recommended that Schedules C and D which refer to the HEP conditions (Schedule B) are removed and put in a separate MoU.
    [Show full text]
  • Rivers Alport & Ashop
    Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport & Ashop Catchment Restoration Fund for England Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop • Tia Crouch, Science Project Manager, Moors for the Future • Richard Vink, Project Officer, National Trust The project is based around the restoration of bare and eroding peat, which is a prominent feature on moorland in the High Peak. Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop Eroding peat is the primary driver of diffuse pollution; the Rivers Ashop and Alport failing to meet the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. Rivers Ashop /Alport are within the NT Peak District; provide water for Ladybower Reservoir, Severn Trent Water Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop Importance of clear objectives • Relevance • Baseline data • Challenging • How – cost/capability • SMART • What does success look like? Are these smart objectives? • Reduce POC and its associates into the river Ashop by 50% from current levels by end 2014. • Establish cotton grass (Eriophorum spp.) and other moorland species on all areas of bare peat associated with gully blocks by July 2015 • Presence of Sphagnum colonies on 80% of suitable habitat by July 2015. Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop What monitoring has shown Bare peat stabilisation is successful in reducing the extent of bare peat. Vegetation quadrat BP4.P1.Q2 in April 2013 and July 2014 Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop Bare peat stabilisation together with gully blocking is successful in reducing sediment loss. • 16g of POC trapped in TIMS units located in control gullies (unblocked and un-vegetated) • 0.2g of POC trapped in TIMS units located in blocked and re-vegetated gullies • This represents a 99% reduction in POC loss Peatland Restoration Project: Rivers Alport and Ashop Gully blocking is successful in raising sediment and water levels in gully systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Display PDF in Separate
    local^environment agency plan DERBYSHIRE DERWENT ACTION PLAN JANUARY 1999 CLAY CROSS ▼ En viro n m en t Agency ▼ Derbyshire Derwent Key Details General Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) Area 1200km2 IPC authorised sites 26 Topography Radioactive Substances (RAS) Maximum level 636 (mAOD) at Kinder Scout Authorisations for accumulation and disposal 5 Minimum level 29 (mAOD) at Church Wilne Population 375,000 (approximately) Administrative Details County ClounciIs_____ Unitary Authorities District/Borough Councils Others Derbyshire_____________ Derby City__________ Amber Valley Peak District National Park Nottinghamshire_______Sheffield City____________ Ashfield________________ Authority________________ Bolsover Erewash _________________________________________________ Derbyshire Dales____________________________________ _________________________________________________ High Peak___________ ________________ _______________________________________ North East Derbyshire ____________ ____________________________________ South Derbyshire________ Main Towns and Populations Conservation Town Population Sites of Special Scientific Interest 51 Alfreton 8,210 Special Areas of Conservation 3 Bakewell 3,920 Scheduled Ancient Monuments 186 Belper 18,510 Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation 415 Buxton 16,060 Derby 176,535 Special Protected Area 1 Matlock 5,130 Ripley 9,250 Flood Defence Wirksworth 5,750 Length of "Main" river 1 71.2km Length of floodbanks and walls maintained by the Agency 20km Water Resources Number of urban flood alleviation
    [Show full text]