proposed Severn barrage

[nightshade]

If America got is finger out and cut CO2 it could at least buy a little time
I have seen that a group of industrialists are trying to force the issue

[xestop1]

Tabby...this is a bit of a delayed reaction...


When you say success on what terms are you rating this. Of course commercially a lot of money has been made and Cardiff as a City has thrived around this development. Unfortunatley this is at the expense of the wildlife within the estuary area. Long gone are the tidal mud flats for the feeding birds. Now to stop the pond going stagnant air is artificailly pumped into the water from massive pipes, using god knows howuch energy...just a thought. Sahme that it has come to this. Not very sustainable is it?

Originally Posted by tabbykitten

I was down in Cardiff Bay last weekend. That whole development does seem to have been a success, despite the scare mongers.

I've also visited Yorkshire recently and the wind turbines on the moors certainly don't add to the environment. I also saw the huge cross country gas pipeline that was being dug. Apparently it will not be detrimental to the environment but the cost was out of this world.

We just have to accept that cheap renewable energy is a necessity but I will always be concerned about safety factors on nuclear waste and accidents in power stations

[tabbykitten]

Cardiff Bay and success - mostly in terms of redeveloping a run down area. I agree with you about the problems with oxygenating the water, there is also a massive prob with some sort of japanese mussel, inedible apparently but develops rapidly in areas where there is minimal tidal flow.

In terms of the mud flats that the feeding birds depended on, I understand that flocks are now to be seen further along the coast, down past Penarth, towards Newport and along the Severn estuary.At the moment anyway. There is also a long standing plan to drain a large part of the Gwent levels - to build a new M4 - which would wreck a large area of wetland (and also affect remaining mud flats).

What it boils down to is that continued building projects of all sorts in the name of progress just have to be looked at with a wider environmental picture.

[xestop1]

"Gwent levels" development -

Originally Posted by tabbykitten

Cardiff Bay and success - mostly in terms of redeveloping a run down area. I agree with you about the problems with oxygenating the water, there is also a massive prob with some sort of japanese mussel, inedible apparently but develops rapidly in areas where there is minimal tidal flow.

In terms of the mud flats that the feeding birds depended on, I understand that flocks are now to be seen further along the coast, down past Penarth, towards Newport and along the Severn estuary.At the moment anyway. There is also a long standing plan to drain a large part of the Gwent levels - to build a new M4 - which would wreck a large area of wetland (and also affect remaining mud flats).

What it boils down to is that continued building projects of all sorts in the name of progress just have to be looked at with a wider environmental picture.

[Charles Halliday]

Sorry - I don't have the time to through this whole thread, but can anyone advise me if there is a petition, campaign or lobby group set up yet. I know the RSPB and FoE have expressed concerns about the recent sustainable energy report 2007 that says it should go ahead...

[JennyS]

Sorry, know its a bit off thread, but picking up on some earlier posts here does anyone still remember Chernobyl?

a non polluting, safe energy source like nuclear power. unless you are another victim of the continued campaigns of misinormation against nuclear technology.
We need energy, we need low carbon generatation, we need a reliable source thatwill not destroy the environment. Nuclear can meet all these requirements.

Ok, so the wildlife might well be returning there (to start replacing all the wildlife that was destroyed) but there are many, many, many people still suffering the effects, let alone the effects that will be suffered by generations to come.

Yes we do need a reliable source that will not destroy the enviroment, but I don't think thats an honest or accurate description of nuclear energy!

[Chiltern Chris]

I’m totally opposed to the barrage for many reasons but I can see that the government will think it’s a good idea. The Severn has about 75% of the country’s viable tidal power and with one big hit it can all be harvested, rather than mucking around with dozens of smaller schemes, all of which will require public inquiries, don’t provide much energy and virtually all destroy sites of European importance.

The decision to go ahead with the barrage or not will be decided for overarching political reasons and the wildlife issues only come into the reckoning regarding the cost of compensation habitat.

The compensation for 1400ha of intertidal habitat (a legal necessity under EU law and accepted by the Sustainable Development Commission) plus a few other bits and bobs has been estimated at approx £3 billion for the Severn barrage. The biggest problems I have with this, besides the technical feasibility are a) the present intertidal areas are sustainable as they are a result of ongoing natural processes. Any replacement habitat will need to be either need to be placed on existing freshwater SSSI – which then also needs to be replaced and b) probable be part of a limited tidal exchange mechanism which is regulated by man. Whilst this is OK in the short term, it’s unlikely to be sustainable in the long term as the site will need both revenue and capital costs to keep it going in the future. It may also need replacement in the next century due to sea level rise.

There’s also a bigger national picture here based on what’s called coastal squeeze. Many of our intertidal SPAs are situated between the sea and our coastal flood defences. Sea level rise means that unless these areas are moved inland behind the defences that they will disappear under the sea. It’s complicated but most of these areas must be moved due to EU law to maintain them in good ecological condition. Therefore, we presently have a number of authorities e.g. the Environment Agency and Planning Authorities desperately looking for compensation sites around the coast for coastal squeeze compensation sites. They are having big problems finding areas which are suitable and sustainable. Add the Severn barrage compensation requirement to the coastal squeeze list along with other barrage proposals and port development proposals and it starts looking like compensation sites are a very finite resource unless we radically change our view on land ownership in low lying coastal land. It also opens a debate over the compensation requirements for freshwater SSSI which often lay behind our coastal defences and are the best sites for coastal squeeze compensation.

Mmmm ……. This sea level rise thing is a bit of a problem that will be unpopular with politicians because the answers will be very contentious, with land owners who have to move because sea defences are abandoned or moved to save wildlife, with conservationists because both the intertidal and freshwater sites will be squeezed and compromised, with planners who will be in the front line of public vitriol when zoning areas for coastal retreat and the public, many of whom don’t understand that we cannot protect the coastline we presently have.

My son is looking forward to living by the seaside as part of the new Chilterns archipelago – avocets and red kites

Chris

[Charles Halliday]

Very interesting post Chris - thanks. You seem to be well informed about the latest regarding the proposed barrage. Can you point me towards on line info on this or did you get your info elsewhere? Incidently, I was told by reliable resources that when the flood defences become breached along the somerset levels, the EA moving defences back to M5 and that residents in the flood zone have been offered incentives for a long time now to move, but many haven't. It was just a passing comment by a professor who has studied the area - I don't any more than that, but I do think it holds promise - even it does mean loosing the levels! As a keen fisherman, I have plenty of angling mates that get very angry with my point of view, but thats their problem! Is aquatic ecology a hobby or career for you?

[Chiltern Chris]

Originally Posted by Charles Halliday

Is aquatic ecology a hobby or career for you?

Hi Charles,

Both is the answer. I’m a professional ecologist mainly dealing with government and local government ecological policy (sounds exciting doesn’t it!). However, I’ve loved wildlife since I was a child and would watch wildlife and fight developers as a hobby if I wasn’t paid to do it. As with many people in this line of work, I volunteered in the mud and snow for years before getting a paid conservation post.

I know about the barrage issue because it affects the aspects of my work to do with compensating for habitat loss due to climate change. A good place to start when thinking about barrages is the Sustainable Development Commission, Sustainable Development Commission UK (SDC): Tidal Power. Putting the Severn to one side, the biggest problem with this subject is that there is no national policy regarding tidal barrage construction, so every estuary is up for grabs and there are likely to be draft proposals for these things all over the place. This will lead to the age old problem for conservation i.e. a death by a thousand cuts, with smaller barrages slowly reducing the intertidal area all over the country until one day we say ‘where’s all the salt marsh gone?’

The issue of set back defences which you mention is presently a very hot potato, suffice to say that we’ll hear a lot more about this over the next few years. The biggest factor when considering this will be the costs of the maintenance of old defences and construction of new defences verses the value of the landholdings behind the defence. In ‘Making Space for Water’ http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/...egy/1stres.pdf (which is the Government’s strategy on flood risk and coastal erosion, it says “the Government will continue with its policy of providing funding for the maintenance of existing defences only where the costs are justified by the full range of benefits provided by the defences.” So that’s pretty clear, if the economics don’t add up, watch out you could be getting wet in the future, although how you cost the intangibles as benefits e.g. communities and conservation, is not clear.

So you can bet that large towns will have money spent on their defence but some areas of farmland and even some SSSIs will be getting a bit wetter or saltier than they are now as defences are not renewed or breached. With winter rainfall expected to increase by 20% (according to Defra), sea level rising and the south sinking, we can’t afford to protect all our existing populations of people and wildlife in their present positions.

Chris

[Charles Halliday]

Thanks for your reply chris. Its great to be able to talk to people who have been around the block so to speak - I'm a mature student studying a BSc in Env Science and with one year left to go, I'm trying to broaden my horizons as to whats really happening outside of the academic world.

Your prediction that estuaries everywhere will either have existing or proposed barrages horrifies me because I can well believe it. Thats why I'm particularly interested in finding out about the design and efficiency of whats being proposed before objecting out right. I'll have a look that link and no doubt find out more as I go along. The first question it raises in my mind is how the WFD might be used to prevent reckless planning permission, if indeed it even has the power to cover estuaries? Apparently DEFRA are being fined �300 mil. by the EU for screwing up the single payment scheme, so maybe EU law will prevent the 'death by a thousand cuts' that you talk about. I suppose its a race against time as some of the new european law is a complete mess.

As for raising sea levels, I don't think that inundation of flood plains matters hugely in the grand scale of things. In fact, I don't think that mass extinction matters hugely either. Sure - its a loss to humans, ecosystems and the like, but the world will be spinning for a long time after we're gone. Don't get me wrong, I would much prefere that these things weren't happening, but I knew the answer before I even started my studies - a smaller global population of humans!!!! But then politicians and economists still won't accept that, so I guess its down to people like you to find compromises. Let me know if you can think of one and in the meantime, I will go and switch the light off that I left on in the bathroom this morning

Cheers.