Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA

[chub_on_the_block]

The EA position is briefly summarsed on their website: Environment Agency - Our position on hydropower. The Institute of Fisheries Management gives a little more detail: http://www.ifm.org.uk/sites/default/files/page/IFM_Hydropower_position_statement_FINAL.pdf.

The basic concern is that detailed environmental impact assessments need to be conducted - including effects on non-aquatic wildlife like bats which feed on fly hatches along the river corridor.

Apart from looking ugly - it is the way that flow velocities may be changed and this will affect aspects such as aeration and the nature of the riverbed. In the Thames, fast flowing well-oxygenated water is confined in its distribution to weirpools - with an effective lake between each of them. In this case any degradation of the weirpool habitat or function within the rivers ecology could have serious implications for fish not only using the weirpool itself but further downstream.

At least this scheme appears to be a community-led not-for-profit proposal (on the face of it at least), which is more commendable than an energy company in my view.

 

[bennygesserit]

From their web site it appears the ea did a computer simulation associated with predicted flows

I will compile a specidic list of questions and pass them on to Paul


Thanks !

 

[chub_on_the_block]

In this case Benny there is already an impounding structure in existence - the existing weir. Problem is though that if such schemes become popular we may see impounding structures being built where there are none at present as you need the "head" to generate the flow through the turbines. For the last 15-20years the EA has being trying, successfully in many cases, to remove unnecessary impoundments (often from old mills no longer in use) as they cause barriers to fish migration and deep siltation of reaches upstream of them. In a free-flowing situation the river is then better able to maintain a more natural channel and associated fish and other wildlife. Therefore it would be a backward step if such schemes were promoted widely.

Thje flow modelling may give some clarity of what to expect under different flow scenarios, but would this modelling extend to address changes in the river bed (siltation) or oxygenation and the knock-on consequences for river life?. Imagine if it caused siltation of the existing weirpool - who would then fund the weirpool dredging and how would this impact upon an important habitat be redressed?

In my view there should be detailed consideration from a gemorphologist (who understands sediment transport in rivers) as well as a freshwater ecologist/fisheries biologist, as well as hydrologists who examine flow. In the Thames the modified channel and abstraction has already changed the river towards being a very long impounded lake so as i said the weirpools perform an important function as is. Ideally it would be great to remove as many weirs as possible - but that is never going to happen.

 

[bennygesserit]

Some fascinating points , the team running the project seem to take enviro issues very seriously , i could forward you the guy's email address if you like , he does seem prepared to answer via email, or compile a list.

His address is published freely on the web site but I don't want to just paste it here without asking.

 

[bennygesserit]

Aha good news Paul Buckingham who is part of the project has joined this forum , he has been an angler for 40 years and will hopefully be using this thread to answer any questions we might have.

He has tried to talk to the ATr but so far had no reply.

Exciting I think that you can get to thecrux of the matter , Lets be gentle with him but not too gentle if you know what i mean, chub I look forwards to him answering your points mate.

 

[geoffmaynard]

So... consultations with unlicensed canoe paddlers who contribute nothing to the environment but no consultation with anglers? Explain yourself!

 

[Berty]

So... consultations with unlicensed canoe paddlers who contribute nothing to the environment but no consultation with anglers? Explain yourself!

Geoff and myself aint always seen eye to eye, and thats being polite! but i will echo his request.....explain yourself!

 

[bennygesserit]

So... consultations with unlicensed canoe paddlers who contribute nothing to the environment but no consultation with anglers? Explain yourself!

From Paul Buckingham's email to me

Hi Benny,
I've joined the forum you mentioned and will go on there at some point to answer some of the questions but I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

We were contacted by a guy from the Angling Trust who we invited to have a meeting with us but he failed to reply to any correspondence so as yet nobody from the angling community has attempted to meet with us.

The other group who have expressed concerns are the canoeists as mentioned in the forum, they contacted us and replied to our correspondence so we have been in discussion with them. We would and always have been open to any debate with any concerned parties so if the anglers want to get in touch we are more than happy to meet them and discuss any issues.

Thank you again for contacting me, maybe you could act as a go between for us so we can get some balanced discussions going and work towards a meeting between the anglers and Abingdon Hydro.

For the record, I am an angler and have been for nearly 40 years!

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:12 ----------

That wasn't mentioned by the ATr was it ?

 

[Berty]

From Paul Buckingham's email to me

Hi Benny,
I've joined the forum you mentioned and will go on there at some point to answer some of the questions but I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

We were contacted by a guy from the Angling Trust who we invited to have a meeting with us but he failed to reply to any correspondence so as yet nobody from the angling community has attempted to meet with us.

The other group who have expressed concerns are the canoeists as mentioned in the forum, they contacted us and replied to our correspondence so we have been in discussion with them. We would and always have been open to any debate with any concerned parties so if the anglers want to get in touch we are more than happy to meet them and discuss any issues.








we are also expressing concern and invite comment.

 

[bennygesserit]

Well he has joined the forum and I said I would collate questions - what questions do you have Berty ?

I also contacted Ian Welch and asked whether he might do an article - TBH they seem like a really nice bunch of people not super villains building a death ray.

 

[904_cannon]

The organisation behind this is anxious to hear anglers views , in fact Paul emailed me back within an hour.

I am not sure what people are actually objecting to.

As I said earlier, licenced to kill 100's of fish day, 10,000's over a year.
Read the ATr position statement on Hydro schemes HERE - also much more info @ The Angling Trust Organisation for Anglers

The ATr is/was pushing for a wider consultation process

More info HERE

Don't be fooled, not everything that is 'green' is good for the environment.

 

[bennygesserit]

As I said earlier, licenced to kill 100's of fish day, 10,000's over a year.
Read the ATr position statement on Hydro schemes HERE - also much more info @ The Angling Trust Organisation for Anglers

The ATr is/was pushing for a wider consultation process

More info HERE

Don't be fooled, not everything that is 'green' is good for the environment.

But the Abingdon screw has been specifically designed so fish can swim through it , they have asked for consultation with the ATr and they haven't replied.

It would be a great question to put to the Abingdon project.

 

[904_cannon]

But the Abingdon screw has been specifically designed so fish can swim through it

The main reason for using them is that fish are carried through without damage, so it is easier to get an Environment Agency licence. They turn quite slowly, 2 to 3 seconds per revolution, but are more efficient than waterwheels. At Abingdon the water will fall about 1.65m, and this means the biggest screw we can use is about 3.3m diameter - any bigger and it gets less efficient. Each one would pass 5 to 6 tons of water per second and generate about 65kW of electrical power. We cannot take all the water, we have to leave some to keep the rest of the river healthy (the "hands off flow"). The Environment Agency sets conditions of what we can take.

From what Ive heard there is hardly any flow in the river, even in winter. Already far too much abstraction and reduction of river energy

they have asked for consultation with the ATr and they haven't replied.

It would be a great question to put to the Abingdon project.

I'll ask, but I think you might be being fed porkys

 

[bennygesserit]

The main reason for using them is that fish are carried through without damage, so it is easier to get an Environment Agency licence. They turn quite slowly, 2 to 3 seconds per revolution, but are more efficient than waterwheels. At Abingdon the water will fall about 1.65m, and this means the biggest screw we can use is about 3.3m diameter - any bigger and it gets less efficient. Each one would pass 5 to 6 tons of water per second and generate about 65kW of electrical power. We cannot take all the water, we have to leave some to keep the rest of the river healthy (the "hands off flow"). The Environment Agency sets conditions of what we can take.

From what Ive heard there is hardly any flow in the river, even in winter. Already far too much abstraction and reduction of river energy



I'll ask, but I think you might be being fed porkys

Its never constructive just to call someone a liar , they aren't going to enter into a dialogue if we do that , maybe the ATr think they replied etc etc.

As regards river energy though you are extracting net energy from the river isn't that a very small amount compared to the tremendous energy in a river i.e. the river isn't going to stop , or be noticeably impared later on downstream.

However silting might be an issue.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

ooops John me and you were both viewing each others profile at the same time

 

[904_cannon]

Just checking whether your not a spokesperson for the developers/shareholders - the only people who will derive any benefit from these schemes, because the river and environment surely wont.

 

[Berty]

Well he has joined the forum and I said I would collate questions - what questions do you have Berty ?

I also contacted Ian Welch and asked whether he might do an article - TBH they seem like a really nice bunch of people not super villains building a death ray.

The one about the canoists would be a good start!!......i dont doubt they are nice people, but i'd rather have an effective ******* where my favourite pastime is concerned

 

[pondy]

Hi everyone,
I'm the correspondent from Abingdon Hydro and I've been reading all the comments with interest.

I will try and answer as many of the questions as I can over the next week or so.
I am an angler myself and have been for almost 40 years so I do have a strong interest in the welfare of fish within the river Thames.

Just a quick answer to one of the questions for now about why we haven't had any discussions with anglers. We had a rather rude e-mail from a guy called Alan Butterworth, who I believe is from the ATr, well over a year ago, we responded to his e-mail with the intention of setting up a meeting to discuss his and the anglers concerns but we have never had a reply. A number of other anglers have approached us at various public events we have attended and we have asked them to contact us via e-mail to set up meetings but nobody has actually got back to us.
Seeing a forum thread like this slamming us for not having discussions with you over your concerns is very frustrating because we do not know who to contact and when we have been approached nobody has actually been bothered to follow up our invitation to meet up leaving us in a difficult position.
The canoeists contacted us and followed up our response and as a result have been able to discuss in depth their concerns and have been able to work together to resolve their issues resulting in the EA granting us an abstraction license. Without this agreement with the canoeists we would not have been granted it.
We would be very glad and indeed relieved if the anglers did get in touch with us and set up a meeting because then we may be seen in a different light and not as environmental terrorists intent on destroying the river.

We really have done all we can to speak to the anglers, we are a voluntary organization and as such do all the work for this project in our spare time so do not have to time to chase around trying to find people to talk to, that I'm afraid is in your court so please get back to us if you have concerns.

Hydro schemes such as this will happen whether now or in the future because the government are pushing for it and there is a future need. We are a community based project and some proceeds from the scheme will be put back into the community to develop other projects both energy and social. If we don't succeed with this project the likelihood is that a commercial outfit with far more financial clout will and any groups such as yourselves will be pushed aside.

Please get in touch with us if you want to have your say, if you don't then we can only conclude that the angling community has no interest in any impact this scheme may have.

Paul.

 

[bennygesserit]

Hi everyone,
I'm the correspondent from Abingdon Hydro and I've been reading all the comments with interest.

I will try and answer as many of the questions as I can over the next week or so.
I am an angler myself and have been for almost 40 years so I do have a strong interest in the welfare of fish within the river Thames.

Just a quick answer to one of the questions for now about why we haven't had any discussions with anglers. We had a rather rude e-mail from a guy called Alan Butterworth, who I believe is from the ATr, well over a year ago, we responded to his e-mail with the intention of setting up a meeting to discuss his and the anglers concerns but we have never had a reply. A number of other anglers have approached us at various public events we have attended and we have asked them to contact us via e-mail to set up meetings but nobody has actually got back to us.
Seeing a forum thread like this slamming us for not having discussions with you over your concerns is very frustrating because we do not know who to contact and when we have been approached nobody has actually been bothered to follow up our invitation to meet up leaving us in a difficult position.
The canoeists contacted us and followed up our response and as a result have been able to discuss in depth their concerns and have been able to work together to resolve their issues resulting in the EA granting us an abstraction license. Without this agreement with the canoeists we would not have been granted it.
We would be very glad and indeed relieved if the anglers did get in touch with us and set up a meeting because then we may be seen in a different light and not as environmental terrorists intent on destroying the river.

We really have done all we can to speak to the anglers, we are a voluntary organization and as such do all the work for this project in our spare time so do not have to time to chase around trying to find people to talk to, that I'm afraid is in your court so please get back to us if you have concerns.

Hydro schemes such as this will happen whether now or in the future because the government are pushing for it and there is a future need. We are a community based project and some proceeds from the scheme will be put back into the community to develop other projects both energy and social. If we don't succeed with this project the likelihood is that a commercial outfit with far more financial clout will and any groups such as yourselves will be pushed aside.

Please get in touch with us if you want to have your say, if you don't then we can only conclude that the angling community has no interest in any impact this scheme may have.

Paul.

Paul thanks for replying - One of the , many , specific questions are will fish die if they travel through the screw , and if they do , will this be in any great numbers ?

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Theres some more info about what is actually proposed from a canoeing thread: Guidebook Community Pages • View topic - Abingdon Weir at Risk from Hydro Project ? - The UK Rivers Guidebook. This includes some details re the abstraction licence (1.3 million cubic metres per day). The scheme was apparently advertised in the Wantage Herald and Oxfordshire press and the deadline for this "consultation" passed last October.

Pondy, what do you get out of this?. I read somewhere else on the net that someone involved considered this project as contributing to gods work on earth and helping with the "Big Society". Is this another way of saying that you might stand to make a lot of money?

 

[stu_the_blank]

Are the ATr monitoring this forum? Would it be possible to have a response from 'The Voice of Angling'? Martin Salter was on Fishermans Blues this morning and mentioned this issue so they must have a view on it.

Stu