F. Geology & Hydrology ( PDF | 31.0 MB ) - RWE.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Environment Agency has also produced Catchment Abstraction Management Strategys (CAMS) for the Clwydd (March 2005) and the Dee (March 2008) catchments. The strategies introduce the principle of Water Resource Management Units (WRMUs) and Ground Water Management Units (GWMUs). The aim of the CAMS is to provide a framework for a consistent and structured approach to local water resources management, encouraging a balance to be found between the needs of abstractors and the needs of the aquatic environment. F1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS, RIVER QUALITY OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND THE GENERAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT River quality is one of the 68 indicators identified by the UK government’s sustainable development strategy: Securing the Future, launched in 2005, and is also one of the 20 indicators outlined within One Future – Different Paths: the UK’s Shared Framework for Sustainable Development, also released in 2005. The quality of watercourses in England and Wales is currently classified by the Environment Agency under the General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme. Under this scheme, each watercourse is assessed separately upon its chemical, ecological (biological), aesthetic qualities and nutrient status. Additional details regarding these assessments are provided below. • Chemical Quality: based upon dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia concentrations, the watercourse is assigned one of six grades: A (very good) to F (bad). These parameters are considered to be the best indicators of the extent to which waters are affected by wastewater discharge and rural land runoff. • Biological Quality: based upon macro-invertebrate studies (an indicator of overall ecological health), one of the six grades A to F is assigned, as per Chemical Quality. • Aesthetic Quality: gives an indication of our perception of river quality through the assessment of various factors including the presence of litter, foam, oil, fungus, odour and colour. The grading system ranges from 1 (good) to 4 (bad). • Nutrient Status: based upon phosphate and nitrate concentrations, which are most likely to be influenced by human activity. A grade of 1 (very low) to 6 (phosphates: excessively high, nitrates: very high) is assigned. In addition to the GQA, Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) establish concentrations of specified substances and are either informal or statutory. Statutory EQSs are generally informed by the Dangerous Substances Directive and the Surface Waters (Dangerous Substances) (Classification) Regulations, 1997 and 1998 (see below for further information). ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT <strong>RWE</strong> NPOWER RENEWABLES LTD F3
After the GQA has been conducted, and in light of EQSs, River Quality Objectives (RQOs) are generally introduced. RQOs set targets to aid in the protection and improvement of river quality, based upon the River Ecosystem (RE) Classification. The RE classification specifies the uses a particular watercourse should ideally be able to provide, in terms, for example, of being suitable for supporting fish. The classification is based upon quality parameters defined within the Freshwater Fish Directive and consists of five classes: RE1 (high quality) to RE5 (low quality) with an additional unclassified level for watercourses suffering from considerable pollution. No legal requirements are directly associated with RQOs. Both EQSs and RQOs are based primarily upon chemical quality and are applied to particular watercourse reaches. F1.3 DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES DIRECTIVE (76/464/EEC), DAUGHTER DIRECTIVES AND THE SURFACE WATERS (DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES) (CLASSIFICATION) REGULATIONS, 1997 AND 1998 The Directive and regulations detail the approach to be taken with respect to two categories of substances: List I and List II. Pollution by substances within List I must be eliminated, whilst pollution by List II substances must be reduced. Emission Limit Values (ELVs, also known as Uniform Emission Standards, or UESs) and EQSs have been established by a series of daughter Directives. EQSs for List II substances have been set by the UK within the Surface Waters (Dangerous Substances) (Classification) Regulations, 1997 and 1998. The Dangerous Substances Directive will be repealed by the WFD in 2013. The transition requires a daughter Directive, named the Priority Substances Directive, which is currently in proposal by the European Commission awaiting approval by Member States and the European Parliament. F1.4 URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT DIRECTIVE (91/271/EEC) AND THE URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT REGULATIONS, 1994 Specific emission limits for discharges are established under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This Directive and the transposed regulations require emission standards or percentage reduction targets to be met for effluents (based upon BOD and suspended solids). F1.5 THE ENVIRONMENT ACT 1995, WATER RESOURCES ACT 1991 AND THE LAND DRAINAGE ACT 1991 Under the Environment Act 1995 it is an offence to discharge poisonous, noxious or polluting material into any ‘controlled waters’ either deliberately or accidentally. Polluting materials include silt, cement, concrete, oil, petroleum spirit, sewage or other debris and waste materials. ‘Controlled Waters’ include all watercourses and water contained in underground strata. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT <strong>RWE</strong> NPOWER RENEWABLES LTD F4
Page 1 and 2: Annex F Geology and Hydrology • F
Page 3: F1 WATER RESOURCES AND FLOODING - L
Page 7 and 8: Protection Zones (SPZs) across Engl
Page 9 and 10: F1.13 CLWYD STRUCTURE PLAN SECOND A
Page 11 and 12: CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 ASSESSM
Page 13 and 14: 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 2.1 INTROD
Page 15 and 16: • Each peat probing location was
Page 17 and 18: 3 RESULTS 3.1 DESK STUDY RESULTS 3.
Page 19 and 20: lower horizon. From these soil seri
Page 21 and 22: Figure 3.3 Wilcocks 2 Comprising So
Page 23 and 24: y their peat-forming vegetation). I
Page 25 and 26: Table 3.2 Peat survey results at pr
Page 27 and 28: BGS superfiical Phase 1 Turbine NSR
Page 29 and 30: BGS superfiical deposits and underl
Page 31 and 32: Table 3.3 Existing and new access t
Page 33 and 34: 3.2.4 Peat Loss Calculations Direct
Page 35 and 36: Infrastructure component Access tra
Page 37 and 38: 4 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 4
Page 39 and 40: Appendix 1 CCW Consultation
Page 41 and 42: CCW are of the view that the impact
Page 43 and 44: Undertaking'. Within this document
Page 45 and 46: Section 42 and LBAP Species/Habitat
Page 47 and 48: We recommend the inclusion of detai
Page 49 and 50: APPENDIX 1: EUROPEAN PROTECTED SPEC
Page 51 and 52: CADEIRYDD/CHAIRMAN: JOHN LLOYD JONE
Page 53 and 54: Peat depth Peat depth is some refec
Page 55 and 56:
Annexe 1: 1.1 Overview (limited ext
Page 57 and 58:
Yours sincerely Name Title Enc cc.
Page 59 and 60:
It would be useful to define what i
Page 61 and 62:
• If peat is identified through d
Page 63 and 64:
1 PHOTOLOG OF SURVEY LOCATIONS Figu
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 1.5 Turbine 4 Figure 1.6 Tra
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 1.9 Track past Turbine 7 Fig
Page 69 and 70:
Figure 1.13 Turbine 11 - Dense fore
Page 71 and 72:
Figure 1.17 Turbine 13 Figure 1.18
Page 73 and 74:
Figure 1.21 Turbine 19 Figure 1.22
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 1.25 Track past Turbine 25 F
Page 77 and 78:
Appendix 3 Detailed Results Figures
Page 79 and 80:
KEY: 0.15m 0.08m 0.2m 0.28m 0.18m 0
Page 81 and 82:
KEY: Development Area Turbine Sampl
Page 83 and 84:
KEY: TURBINE 4 Development Area Tur
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
KEY: Development Area Turbine Sampl
Page 91 and 92:
KEY: TURBINE 22 Development Area Tu
Page 93 and 94:
KEY: TURBINE 26 Development Area Tu
Page 95 and 96:
KEY: 0.2 0.12 Development Area Turb
Page 97 and 98:
National Soil Resources Institute S
Page 99 and 100:
National Soil Resources Institute A
Page 101 and 102:
National Soil Resources Institute W
Page 103 and 104:
National Soil Resources Institute 1
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
National Soil Resources Institute M
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
National Soil Resources Institute P
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
National Soil Resources Institute a
Page 135 and 136:
National Soil Resources Institute B
Page 137 and 138:
National Soil Resources Institute e
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
National Soil Resources Institute a
Page 193 and 194:
National Soil Resources Institute B
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Annex F4 Flood Consequences Assessm
Page 215 and 216:
Flood Consequences Assessment - Clo
Page 217 and 218:
Contents Executive Summary ........
Page 219 and 220:
1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives Walli
Page 221 and 222:
Runoff rates under 100-year storm t
Page 223 and 224:
2 Description of the Site 2.1 Backg
Page 225 and 226:
Steep channel with forest debris cl
Page 227 and 228:
Figure 3 Location of proposed turbi
Page 229 and 230:
2.4 Catchment Delineation An assess
Page 231 and 232:
Outfall grid reference Total catchm
Page 233 and 234:
Tests were attempted at two sites w
Page 235 and 236:
The long term impacts on the surfac
Page 238 and 239:
4 Flood Consequences Assessment 4.1
Page 240 and 241:
4.3 Current Flood Risk In summary,
Page 242 and 243:
Analyses are not presented for the
Page 244 and 245:
WRAP fractional extents of 0.75 WRA
Page 246 and 247:
5.3 Calculation of Existing Greenfi
Page 248 and 249:
Afon Alwen No. 3 Afon Alwen No. 4 R
Page 250 and 251:
1. Do nothing - on the grounds that
Page 252 and 253:
5.6 Construction Appropriate method
Page 254 and 255:
On the basis of a literature review
Page 256 and 257:
Robinson, M. and Dupeyrat, A. 2005.
Page 258 and 259:
Clocaenog Methodology and reasons f
Page 260 and 261:
Clocaenog Methodology for mineral s
Page 262 and 263:
Clocaenog Methodology for mineral s
Page 264 and 265:
1.1 OVERVIEW CLOCEANOG WIND FARM BO
Page 266 and 267:
Table1.1 Forest and Water Guideline
Page 268 and 269:
Table 1.2 Borrow pit search areas S
Page 270 and 271:
Table 1.3 Recommended borrow pit lo
Page 272 and 273:
Name Easting Northing Search Area N
Page 274:
360000 .000000 359000 .000000 35800
show all

F. Geology & Hydrology ( PDF | 31.0 MB ) - RWE.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?