DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrology Assessment of Proposed Licence Changes to Testwood PWS and Lower Test Flow Splits Sensitivity Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Hydrology Assessment June 2017 Lower Test Project: Hydrology assessment of Proposed Licence Changes to Testwood PWS and Lower Test Flow splits sensitivity analysis June 2017 Hydrology Assessment June 2017 Contents 1. Background ................................................................................................................... 3 2. Aim of Report ................................................................................................................ 4 3. River Test Catchment Description ................................................................................. 4 4. Resource Assessment .................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Environmental Targets ................................................................................................ 7 4.1.1 EFI ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Salmon migration protection flow requirements criteria ......................................... 8 4.1.3 River Test and Lower Test Valley SSSIs and Solent & Southampton Water Ramsar habitats and species Criteria ............................................................................ 8 4.2 Flow Data .................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Gauged Data ........................................................................................................ 9 4.2.2 Natural Data ....................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Artificial Influences .................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Additional Assessment Points in Ledger .................................................................... 17 5. Current Lower Test WR Assessment ........................................................................... 17 6. Licence Change Options ............................................................................................. 20 6.1 Option 1: Change licence conditions to meet EFI ...................................................... 21 6.2 Option 2: Change licence to Average Recent Actual Quantities ................................ 23 6.3 Option 3: Change current HoF to the in-river salmon migration protection and salmon entry protection HoFs ...................................................................................................... 23 6.4 Option 4: Change current HoF to the in-river salmon migration protection and salmon entry protection HoFs along with a reduction in licence quantities to meet EFI ................ 24 6.5 Option 5: Change licence to Voluntary Licence conditions ........................................ 26 6.5 Option 6: Alternative Management – Flow Splits ....................................................... 28 6.5.1 Methodology: Reduce Broadlands Fish Farm Carrier flow by 60% ..................... 28 6.5.2 Methodology: Coleridge Award Fixed flow split ................................................... 29 6.5.3 Reduce Broadlands Fish Farm Carrier Flow and use Coleridge Award Fixed flow split ............................................................................................................................. 30 6.5.4 Alternative Management Option Results ............................................................. 31 7. Change in Abstraction Sensitivity and EFI for the Test ................................................ 32 7.1 ASB3 High Sensitivity ................................................................................................ 32 7.2 ASB13 Transitional waterbody .................................................................................. 33 8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 34 References ......................................................................................................................... 35 Hydrology Assessment June 2017 1. Background To manage water effectively we need to understand how much is available and where it is available, after considering the needs of the environment. This is achieved by undertaking a resource assessment. Over many years we have assessed the impact of abstraction throughout the River Test. In 2000 we developed the Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (CAMS) process as a consistent national tool for managing abstraction. The CAMS process was updated in 2013 to produce Abstraction Licensing Strategies (ALS) to help set out how we will manage the water resources of a catchment and contribute to implementing the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The ALS process sets out a nationally consistent Resource Assessment Method (RAM). Water availability is determined by the relationship between each of the following main components of RAM: a resource allocation for the environment defined as a proportion of natural flow, known as the Environmental Flow Indicator (EFI); the Fully Licensed (FL) scenario - the situation if all abstraction licences were being used to full capacity; the Recent Actual (RA) scenario – the amount of water which has actually been abstracted on average (usually over a set timeperiod). The first Test & Itchen CAMS in 2006 (Environment Agency, 2006) indicated that at low flows the Lower Test catchment are “over-licensed”. This means that if existing licences were used to their full allocation they would have the potential to cause unacceptable environmental impact at low flows but that current actual abstraction is resulting in no water available at low flows. While the main aim of the abstraction management process is to set out how we deal with future abstraction it also identifies sites that are potentially being adversely affected by abstraction for inclusion in the Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) programme for investigation as funding and resources allow. The 2006 CAMS and subsequent ALS identified concerns about the Testwood Public Water Supply (11/42/18.16/546) abstraction impact at fully licensed quantities on the River Test. Testwood is Southern Water’s largest single licence, located close to the tidal limit of the River Test. Testwood was therefore entered into the RSA programme and Southern Water began their National Environment Programme (NEP) for AMP 5 (2010 – 2015) to investigate Testwood’s impact on the Lower Test SSSI in 2011, after the precursor Environment Agency RSA project from 2009-2011. The Southern Water NEP concluded that there was minimal risk to the environment from both current and full use of the licence (Atkins, 2013). Although we agreed that current abstraction levels do not appear to be having a significant impact on the River Test and Lower Test Valley SSSIs, we disagreed with Southern Water about the risk of potential impacts associated with increased abstraction levels. We believe that it is necessary to reduce the Testwood abstraction licence to prevent any risk of deterioration and to ensure protection of SSSI habitats and species and the downstream Ramsar site. Southern Water have indicated that they believe that the licence should be reduced but, due to the lack of information provided to show there is no risk of deterioration, there is no agreement with them about the changes needed. Southern Water also contend that the Environment Flow Indicator and other target flow regimes should not apply in an environment affected by structures diverting flows and impounding rivers and so options of alternative river management could be considered to achieve the environmental objectives. No firm options have been proposed and so work is ongoing to change the Testwood licence to be a more sustainable abstraction. Hydrology Assessment June 2017 2. Aim of Report This report has been produced to demonstrate current compliance conditions in the River Test and to test the environmental sustainability of options for changing the Testwood Public Water Supply Licence. The report will assess a set of proposed licence change options compared to the environmental outcomes measured by changes in flow set by the NEP project. This report does not discuss or validate the environmental outcomes. Southern Water have been considering catchment management options including ways to modify the Lower Test flow splits to contribute the environmental objectives. No firm options alternative management option have been proposed. The secondary aim of this report is to complete a sensitivity analysis to assess whether there is any real benefit in managing the flow diversions to the environmental outcomes. It must be noted that the flow diversions in the Lower Test area are unlikely to have a significant effect on overall total flows entering the estuary, and all the diversions and offtakes are privately owned and are not currently subject to regulation and so the EA has no part in enforcing or managing the flow in those channels 3. River Test Catchment Description Detailed information on the catchment including the hydrology (river management, flow splits and diversions) of the lower River Test (from Timsbury to the estuary) was compiled by the Environment Agency as part of its Lower Test Project in 2009 and reported in the Baseline Data Report (Environmental Agency, 2010a) & Flow Diversion Scoping Report (Environment Agency, 2010b). A summary of this information is presented in this report. The River Test is a
Recommended publications
  • South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the South East River Basin District

    South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the South East River Basin District

    South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the South East river basin district March 2016 Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon house, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506 Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2016 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Contents Glossary and abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 The layout of this document ........................................................................................................ 7 1 Sub-areas in the South East river basin district .............................................................. 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 9 Flood Risk Areas ......................................................................................................................... 9 Management catchments ............................................................................................................ 9 2 Conclusions, objectives and measures to manage risk for the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area..........................................................................................................................
  • Submission Draft

    Submission Draft

    Upper Clatford Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019-2029 Submission draft DJN Planning Limited · March 2020 · For Upper Clatford Parish Council [this page blank] 1 CONTENTS Page 1. SETTING THE SCENE 1 Introduction 1 Format of the Neighbourhood Development Plan 1 National and local planning policy context 2 2. UPPER CLATFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA 5 Key issues 7 3. VISION AND OBJECTIVES 9 Vision 9 Objectives 9 4. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – policy UC1 11 5. COMMUNITY 12 Community services, facilities and recreation – policy UC2 12 Housing mix – policy UC3 15 6. ECONOMY 18 Small-scale employment development – policy UC4 18 Renewable and low carbon energy projects – policy UC5 20 7. BUILT ENVIRONMENT 24 Design – policy UC6 24 Upper Clatford Conservation Area – policy UC7 27 8. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 33 Landscape character – policy UC8 33 Landscape and settlement views – policy UC9 39 Andover – Anna Valley/Upper Clatford Local Gap – policy UC10 46 Local Green Spaces – policy UC11 53 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation – policy UC12 59 9. DELIVERING THE PLAN 63 Community actions 63 PLANS 1 Upper Clatford Neighbourhood Area 5 2 Community services and facilities 14 3 Open space and recreational land and buildings 14 4 Location of existing solar farms 21 5 Upper Clatford Conservation Area Character Appraisal Map 30 6 Landscape Character Types and Landscape Character Areas 34 7 Landscape views 40 8 Settlement views 43 9 Local Gap component areas 49 10 Local Green Spaces 55 11 Current Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 60 12 Proposed Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 61 APPENDIX A: Evidence base 66 All photographs have been taken by John Baxter and Rob Hall who have granted permission to use them in the NDP.
  • Streams, Ditches and Wetlands in the Chichester District. by Dr

    Streams, Ditches and Wetlands in the Chichester District. by Dr

    Streams, Ditches and Wetlands in the Chichester District. By Dr. Carolyn Cobbold, BSc Mech Eng., FRSA Richard C J Pratt, BA(Hons), PGCE, MSc (Arch), FRGS Despite the ‘duty of cooperation’ set out in the National Planning Policy Framework1, there is mounting evidence that aspects of the failure to deliver actual cooperation have been overlooked in the recent White Paper2. Within the subregion surrounding the Solent, it is increasingly apparent that the development pressures are such that we risk losing sight of the natural features that underscore not only the attractiveness of the area but also the area’s natural health itself. This paper seeks to focus on the aquatic connections which maintain the sub-region’s biological health, connections which are currently threatened by overdevelopment. The waters of this sub-region sustain not only the viability of natural habitat but also the human economy of employment, tourism, recreation, leisure, and livelihoods. All are at risk. The paper is a plea for greater cooperation across the administrative boundaries of specifically the eastern Solent area. The paper is divided in the following way. 1. Highlands and Lowlands in our estimation of worth 2. The Flow of Water from Downs to Sea 3. Wetlands and Their Global Significance 4. Farmland and Fishing 5. 2011-2013: Medmerry Realignment Scheme 6. The Protection and Enhancement of Natural Capital in The Land ‘In Between’ 7. The Challenge to Species in The District’s Wildlife Corridors 8. Water Quality 9. Habitat Protection and Enhancement at the Sub-Regional Level 10. The policy restraints on the destruction of natural capital 11.
  • Impacts of Watercress Farming on Stream Ecosystem Functioning and Community Structure

    Impacts of Watercress Farming on Stream Ecosystem Functioning and Community Structure

    Impacts of watercress farming on stream ecosystem functioning and community structure. Cotter, Shaun The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author For additional information about this publication click this link. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/8385 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] Impacts of watercress farming on stream ecosystem functioning and community structure Shaun Cotter School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary, University of London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London September 2012 1 Abstract. Despite the increased prominence of ecological measurement in fresh waters within recent national regulatory and legislative instruments, their assessment is still almost exclusively based on taxonomic structure. Integrated metrics of structure and function, though widely advocated, to date have not been incorporated into these bioassessment programmes. We sought to address this, by assessing community structure (macroinvertebrate assemblage composition) and ecosystem functioning (decomposition, primary production, and herbivory rates), in a series of replicated field experiments, at watercress farms on the headwaters of chalk streams, in southern England. The outfalls from watercress farms are typically of the highest chemical quality, however surveys have revealed long-term (30 years) impacts on key macroinvertebrate taxa, in particular the freshwater shrimp Gammarus pulex (L.), yet the ecosystem-level consequences remain unknown.
  • 14/00300/Fulln

    14/00300/Fulln

    Test Valley Borough Council – Northern Area Planning Committee – 10 July 2014 ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 14/00300/FULLN APPLICATION TYPE FULL APPLICATION - NORTH REGISTERED 10.02.2014 APPLICANT Lord Simon Tanlaw SITE Upper Mill House , Monxton, Andover, SP11 8AP, ABBOTTS ANN PROPOSAL The construction of a replacement weir AMENDMENTS Additional information received: 06.03.2014 07.03.2014 21.03.2014 09.05.2014 CASE OFFICER Miss Emma Jones Background paper (Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application is referred to the Northern Area Planning Committee at the request of a Local Ward Member due to the widespread interest in this matter. 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 Upper Mill House is situated to the east of the village of Monxton. The existing weir to be replaced is situated to the west of the existing dwelling and its residential curtilage. The site of the proposed replacement weir lies just outside the boundary of the Amport and Monxton Conservation Area. 3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 The construction of a replacement weir. 3.2 The planning application proposes alterations to the existing weir that was constructed at the point where the Pillhill Brook branches away from the mill stream. The information supporting this planning application advises that prioritising flow into a single channel, the Mill Leat (watercourse running directly to the south of the dwelling at Upper Mill House), during low flows will make the Pilhill Brook (overflow carrier) more resilient in flood flows. The existing weir is notched to allow a small flow through into the overflow channel.
  • The Parsonage

    The Parsonage

    WELCOME TO THE PARSONAGE Dear Angler, Welcome to The Parsonage and your fishing on the River Test. By now I hope you are relaxed, reading this with a cup of coffee and preparing for a great fishing day. Here is a summary of the fishing and what to expect; have a lovely day. The River Test has a total length of 40 miles and it flows through downland from its source near Overton, 6 miles to the west of Basingstoke, to the sea at the head of Southampton Water. Ron Broomfield The river rises in the village of Ashe, and flows west through the villages of Overton, Laverstoke, and the town River Keeper of Whitchurch, before joining with the Bourne Rivulet at Testbourne and turning in a more southerly direction. It then flows through the villages of Longparish and Middleton to Wherwell and Chilbolton, where the Rivers Dever and Anton contribute to the flow. From Chilbolton the river flows through Leckford, Longstock, Stockbridge and Houghton, to Mottisfont and Kimbridge, where the River Dun joins the flow. From here the village of Timsbury is passed and then you are on The Parsonage beat. Below us are the grounds of Roke Manor, Greatbridge and the town of Romsey. On the western edge of Romsey, is Sadler's Mill, an 18th Century watermill, sits astride the River Test. South of Romsey, the river flows past the country house of Broadlands, past Nursling that was once the site of a Roman bridge, and between Totton and Redbridge. Here the river is joined by the River Blackwater and soon becomes tidal, widening out into a considerable estuary that is lined on its northern bank by the container terminals and quays of the Port of Southampton.
  • The State of England's Chalk Streams

    The State of England's Chalk Streams

    FUNDED WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM REPORT UK 2014 The State of England’s Chalk Streams This report has been written by Rose O’Neill and Kathy Hughes on behalf of WWF-UK with CONTENTS help and assistance from many of the people and organisations hard at work championing England’s chalk streams. In particular the authors would EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 like to thank Charles Rangeley-Wilson, Lawrence Talks, Sarah Smith, Mike Dobson, Colin Fenn, 8 Chris Mainstone, Chris Catling, Mike Acreman, FOREWORD Paul Quinn, David Bradley, Dave Tickner, Belinda by Charles Rangeley-Wilson Fletcher, Dominic Gogol, Conor Linsted, Caroline Juby, Allen Beechey, Haydon Bailey, Liz Lowe, INTRODUCTION 13 Bella Davies, David Cheek, Charlie Bell, Dave Stimpson, Ellie Powers, Mark Gallant, Meyrick THE STATE OF ENGLAND’S CHALK STREAMS 2014 19 Gough, Janina Gray, Ali Morse, Paul Jennings, Ken Caustin, David Le Neve Foster, Shaun Leonard, Ecological health of chalk streams 20 Alex Inman and Fran Southgate. This is a WWF- Protected chalk streams 25 UK report, however, and does not necessarily Aquifer health 26 reflect the views of each of the contributors. Chalk stream species 26 Since 2012, WWF-UK, Coca-Cola Great Britain and Pressures on chalk streams 31 Coca-Cola Enterprises have been working together Conclusions 42 to secure a thriving future for English rivers. The partnership has focused on improving the health A MANIFESTO FOR CHALK STREAMS 45 of two chalk streams directly linked to Coca-Cola operations: the Nar catchment in Norfolk (where AN INDEX OF ENGLISH CHALK STREAMS 55 some of the sugar beet used in Coca-Cola’s drinks is grown) and the Cray in South London, near 60 to Coca-Cola Enterprises’ Sidcup manufacturing GLOSSARY site.
  • Impacts of Watercress Farming on Stream Ecosystem Functioning and Community Structure

    Impacts of Watercress Farming on Stream Ecosystem Functioning and Community Structure

    Impacts of watercress farming on stream ecosystem functioning and community structure Shaun Cotter School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary, University of London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London September 2012 1 Abstract. Despite the increased prominence of ecological measurement in fresh waters within recent national regulatory and legislative instruments, their assessment is still almost exclusively based on taxonomic structure. Integrated metrics of structure and function, though widely advocated, to date have not been incorporated into these bioassessment programmes. We sought to address this, by assessing community structure (macroinvertebrate assemblage composition) and ecosystem functioning (decomposition, primary production, and herbivory rates), in a series of replicated field experiments, at watercress farms on the headwaters of chalk streams, in southern England. The outfalls from watercress farms are typically of the highest chemical quality, however surveys have revealed long-term (30 years) impacts on key macroinvertebrate taxa, in particular the freshwater shrimp Gammarus pulex (L.), yet the ecosystem-level consequences remain unknown. Initial studies were at Europe’s largest watercress farm at St Mary Bourne, Hampshire, during the bioremediation of its complex wastewaters and changes to farm management practices. These widened to include larger scale spatiotemporal studies at other watercress farms. Detrimental ecological impacts at the start of the study were detected by the structural and functioning measures, but they did not respond to bioremediation. However, an increase in G. pulex abundance was detected, providing evidence of recovery in response to altered practices, which may be attributable to the cessation of chlorine use. The detrimental impacts were unique to the St Mary Bourne watercress farm and were not consistent across the other watercress farms in the study.
  • SUIAG Journal No 1 1992

    SUIAG Journal No 1 1992

    ISSN 0967-3474 Southampton University Industrial Archaeology Group Journal www.hias.org.uk from Downloaded SjM'' V. i : ■& ! ' ^ >vi a mm. N o . 1 N o v e m b e r 1992 Southampton University Industrial Archaeology Group Journal www.hias.org.uk from Downloaded Published by Southampton University Archaeology Group ©Copyright 1992 individual authors and Southampton University Archaeology Group All rights reserved Editor: Dr Edwin Course ISSN 0967-3474 Produced by Wessex Archaeology Printed by Salisbury Printing www.hias.org.uk from Downloaded Contents Contributors........................................................................................................................................................ iii Editorial and Acknowledgements................................................................................................................. iv The Restoration of the Golden Lion Brewhouse, Southwick bif Pam Moore ............................................................................................................................................ 1 The Restoration of Bursledon Windmill by John Reynolds ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Watercress Growing in Hampshie: a Forgotten Industry? by Steve Fletcher and Dave Goodwin..........................................................................................................15 Restoring a Southampton Tram by Angela Smith..........................................................................................................................................
  • Pageflex Server

    Pageflex Server

    CHARMING DETACHED PERIOD COTTAGE WITH SEPARATE 1-BEDROOM ANNEXE bridge cottage, balksbury hill, upper clatford, andover, hampshire sp11 7lw A CHARMING WELL PRESENTED DETACHED PERIOD COTTAGE IN DELIGHTFUL GARDENS WITH DETACHED 1-BEDROOM ANNEXE bridge cottage, balksbury hill, upper clatford, andover, hampshire sp11 7lw Sitting room • dining room • kitchen • conservatory • 3 bedrooms (1 with en suite shower room) • family bathroom • detached annexe with ground floor kitchen/reception room, 1st floor bedroom with en suite shower room • garage • gardens • in all about 0.42 acres • EPC ratings: Cottage=D, Annexe=D Situation Upper Clatford is situated in the northern Test Valley in an area convenient for the cathedral cities of both Winchester and Salisbury and the market town of Andover. Stockbridge, which lies to the south, offers a range of boutique shops, restaurants and hostelries, and the area in general is famed for its country pursuits including some of the finest chalk stream fishing in the northern hemisphere. The village of Upper Clatford itself lies on the River Anton which flows through the village past the All Saints Church and an abundance of period and character houses and thatched cottages. The local pub is thriving, and there are further amenities in the neighbouring villages of Goodworth Clatford and Anna Valley. Schooling in the area is first class with a number of state and private schools including the highly regarded Farleigh School at Redrice. Road access is excellent, lying to the south of the A303 which in turn gives access to the A34 and M3 providing links to the West Country, Midlands, London and the South Coast.
  • Upper Clatford Referendum Plan

    Upper Clatford Referendum Plan

    Upper Clatford Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019-2029 DJN Planning Limited · December 2020 · For Upper Clatford Parish Council [this page blank] CONTENTS Page 1. SETTING THE SCENE 1 Introduction 1 Format of the Neighbourhood Development Plan 1 National and local planning policy context 2 2. UPPER CLATFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA 5 Key issues 8 3. VISION AND OBJECTIVES 10 Vision 10 Objectives 10 4. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – policy UC1 12 5. COMMUNITY 13 Community services, facilities and recreation – policy UC2 13 Housing mix – policy UC3 16 6. ECONOMY 19 Small-scale employment development – policy UC4 19 Renewable and low carbon energy projects – policy UC5 21 7. BUILT ENVIRONMENT 25 Design – policy UC6 25 Upper Clatford Conservation Area – policy UC7 28 Non-designated heritage assets – policy UC8 33 8. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 35 Landscape character – policy UC9 35 Important landscape and settlement views – policy UC10 41 Andover – Anna Valley/Upper Clatford Local Gap – policy UC11 49 Local Green Spaces – policy UC12 56 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation – policy UC13 62 9. DELIVERING THE PLAN 66 Community actions 66 PLANS 1 Upper Clatford Designated Neighbourhood Area 5 2 Key features and services 7 3 Recreation and community facilities 15 4 Location of existing solar farms 22 5 Upper Clatford Conservation Area Character Appraisal Map 31 6 Landscape Character Types and Landscape Character Areas 36 7 Landscape views 42 8 Settlement views 46 9 Local Gap component areas 52 10 Local Green Spaces 58 11 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and Road Verges of Ecological Importance 63 12 Proposed Site of Importance for Nature Conservation 64 APPENDIX A: Evidence base 69 APPENDIX B: Character of Settlement Areas 71 All photographs have been taken by John Baxter and Rob Hall who have granted permission to use them in the NDP.
  • River Basin Management Plan South East River Basin District

    River Basin Management Plan South East River Basin District

    River Basin Management Plan South East River Basin District Contact us The Environment Agency wants organisations and individuals to get involved in river basin management, and help take this plan forward. You can contact us in any of these ways: • email at [email protected] • phone on 08708 506506 • post to Environment Agency (Southern Region), Regional Strategy Unit, Guildbourne House, Chatsworth Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1LD. The Environment Agency website holds the river basin management plans for England and Wales, and a range of other information about the environment, river basin management planning and the Water Framework Directive www.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfd. These materials can also be viewed at Guildbourne House, or any of the local Environment Agency offices in Southern Region. You can search maps for information related to this plan by using ‘What’s In Your Backyard’ http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/maps. Published by: Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD tel: 08708 506506 email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk © Environment Agency Some of the information used on the maps was created using information supplied by the Geological Survey and/or the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and/or the UK Hydrographic Office. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Images by the Environment Agency except: Dave Porter (cover), Neil Alderney (Test and Itchen), Christophe Finot (Isle of Wight), Henry Law (Arun and Western Streams), Martin Tothill (Adur and Ouse), Andy Penney (Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels), Jim Linwood (Rother) and Simon Carey (Stour).