Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Environment Agency (BW 46a)
1. WATER FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE AND
CANALS
Question: Provide information about any conclusions
drawn from the pilot river basin programme, involving the River
Ribble's catchment area, about biodiversity issues on canals,
and particularly whether any conflict exists between the intensity
of use of the canal network and the sustenance of biodiversity?
The Water Framework Directive establishes new
and better ways of protecting and improving our water environment
through the production and delivery of a River Basin Management
Plan by 2009 for each River Basin District.
The Ribble integrated catchment management plan
was part of our pilot work on the Ribble on how to best integrate
the variety of uses and pressures into a programme of measures
for a river basin plan. However, it did not analyse the issues
in detail or cover the cost effectiveness of implementing these
measures on the catchment. This will be undertaken as part of
the North West River Basin Management Plan. The study did not
draw any conclusions on the intensity of use of the canal network
and the sustenance of biodiversity.
The Ribble provides a key strategic link between
the Lancaster Canal and the national canal network. The Leeds-Liverpool
Canal and the Lancaster canal were recognised within the pilot
study for their importance to navigation, angling, towpath use
and biodiversity. These factors will be key in looking at the
cost effectiveness of any proposed measures in achieving the environmental
objectives for the river basin.
Work is currently underway to develop the process
for assessing this. The process will be defined by the summer
(2007).
Inevitably some conflicts exist between canal
use and the sustenance of biodiversity. As with conflict on land
use, these tend to be site or development specific. In most cases
these issues are resolved through environmental impact assessments
and subsequent mitigation. However, in a few cases, generally
involving smaller canal organisations where resources are limited,
biodiversity is largely ignored.
There is some evidence that certain levels of
boat use on a canal impacts upon the sustenance of biodiversity.
Evidence from British Waterways' Montgomery Canal suggests that
up to 300 boat movements per year can improve biodiversity but
that by 2000 boat movements per year biodiversity has significantly
degraded. The extent of the impact depends upon the intensity
of use, size and type of boat, and local circumstances. Other
recreational use, walkers using the towpath for example, can impact
more than a boat on the water. British Waterways use their own
ecological expertise and that of Natural England to advise on
biodiversity matters.
2. WATER TRANSFERS
FOR NAVIGATION
PURPOSES
Question: Provide information about how the Agency
and British Waterways would approach a situation whereby British
Waterways wanted to use river water either directly or indirectly
to address lack of water in a canal. What implications would this
have on the supply of water in the river network and for drinking
water? How would British Waterways and the Agency enter into such
an agreement? The Chairman suggested that examples could be used
from the Stroud area, if available.
Water transfers into canals are currently exempt
from the need for an abstraction licence (under the Water Resources
Act, 1991). However, we work closely with British Waterways to
minimise the impacts of such transfers upon the environment. Failure
to do so could adversely reduce the flows and levels in our rivers.
This has many potential impacts, including:
— reducing water availability for public
supply;
— reducing the ability of our environment
to sustain drought;
— reducing the dilution of discharged
effluent;
— reducing habitat diversity and suitability
for resident and migrating species of flora and fauna;
— reducing freshwater input into our
estuaries, increasing salinity and temperature within them;
— reducing the integrity of riverbanks
which dry out and become more prone to erosion;
— reducing the natural scouring that
prevents habitats from silting up.
We need to balance the range of demands on our
water supply to provide for public, industrial and environmental
needs. During periods of drought the balance necessarily shifts
towards meeting public supply needs. We have defined operating
agreements with the Water Companies. These set a minimum flow
that must be maintained for rivers adjacent to abstraction points
or from which water is directly abstracted. Trigger points are
then defined relative to reservoir and groundwater levels at which
the minimum flow requirements are reduced.
A good example of such an agreement is the Lower
Thames Operating Agreement. This provides a series of minimum
river flows that must be maintained for the Thames, through Kingston,
relative to reservoir and groundwater water levels. As levels
fall so the minimum flow level reduces enabling the water companies
to abstract more of the river's flow to meet and protect public
water supply needs.
These agreements afford the best protection
to our aquatic environments, whilst adapting to drought periods
to meet the public water supply need.
As a result of balancing these priorities there
have been instances when we have refused the transfer of water
to a canal. However, we try to minimise and manage these.
We currently have Memorandums of Understanding (MOU)
and agreements with British Waterways. For example a successful
MOU was established five years ago for the interaction between
the River Ryton and the Chesterfield Canal. This MOU established
a set of control rules and a monitoring programme to protect the
river and help facilitate potential drought provisions for the
canal. The MOU is currently under review after its first five-year
period, and as part of this we are working with British Waterways
to jointly develop and fund telemetry improvements and better
data interchange.
More recently we have been working with British
Waterways on plans for the restoration of the Cotswold Canal,
around Stroud. Here a mini-Catchment Abstraction Management (CAMS)
plan was developed. This was used to work out the availability
of water for the canal, the necessary compensation flows to be
provided and to analyse water demand patterns, using British Waterways
data. The CAMS plan ensured that all parts of our business contributed
to what has become a successful potential model for future licensing
of canal water transfers.
Canal water transfers will require water transfer
abstraction licenses when the exemption is removed under Section
5 of the Water Act, 2003 that comes into force in April 2008. This
will further aid our ability to manage water resources more effectively,
to respond to climate change and increasing demand.
Canal water transfers are one of a number of
previously exempted activities that will be controlled under the
Act. Others include trickle irrigation, Internal Drainage Board
(IDB) transfers and de-watering of mines and quarries.
From 2008, British Waterways will therefore
be required to obtain the appropriate abstraction licence for
any water needed to take to feed a canal.
Environment Agency
April 2007
| 
