View
227
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Described the hydrological model developed for the Gartloch Gartcosh area, and examins flood extents under a range of scenarios.
Citation preview
Water Environment
Glasgow City Council North Lanarkshire Council Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership
Dec 2011
Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study
Water Environment
Glasgow City Council North Lanarkshire Council Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership
Dec 2011
This page is left blank deliberately
Prepared by: Barry O’Connor Stephanie Rebours-Smith Hazel Smith Checked by: Debbie Hay-Smith Principal Hydrologist
Approved by: Peter Robinson Regional Director Gartloch and Gartcosh Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan
Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by
Date
Draft DHS PMR 3/10/11
Final Draft PMR PMR 28/10/11
Final PMR PMR 01/12/11
1 Tanfield, Edinburgh, EH3 5DA Telephone: 0131 301 8600 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No 60186328 Reference M001.001 Date Created: Dec 2011 This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.
This report has been produced on behalf of Glasgow City Council, North Lanarkshire Council, and the Glasgow and Clyde Valley
Green Network Partnership for the purpose of presenting a Hydrological Study for the Gartloch and Gartcosh area.
The site area encompasses c.24km2 located within the central belt of Scotland and which lies within the boundaries of both
Glasgow City Council and North Lanarkshire Council.
This report provides an assessment of flood risk from the watercourses in the area including a hydrological assessment to define
the potential flood areas under various Annual Exceedance Probabilities (AEP) up to 0.2%. An additional allowance to account
for estimated future climate change has being assessed for the 3.33% AEP and 0.5% AEP scenarios.
This report also provides consideration of the sewerage system in the area and interactions with the surface water regime.
Consultation has being carried out for this report with stakeholders including Glasgow City Council, North Lanarkshire Council,
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership, The Coal Authority, SEPA and Scottish Water.
This document sets out to establish a baseline of the site to support the design study process by investigating all sources of
flooding, including fluvial and pluvial flooding under a range of annual exceedance probabilities (AEP) which may create
significant constraints for the site and provide the principles for future drainage provision, which optimises the balance of
environmental constraints with the regeneration and design study aspirations and introduces a concept for how the future surface
water management of the site can be developed.
One of the aims of this project is to propose to integrate a hydrological strategy for successful current and future management of
existing water bodies within the framework of a wetland park.
In addition, a separate Surface Water Management Strategy (SWMS) has been prepared following the guidance and
requirements set out in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and to meet the guidance of CIRIA 697 – The SuDS Manual, and
Controlled Activity Regulations – The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005.
Executive Summary
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15
5 Hydraulic Modelling ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
6 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 41
7 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Table of Contents
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 1
1.1 Background
This report forms part of the study of the Gartloch and Gartcosh area that is being undertaken by Glasgow City Council (GCC),
North Lanarkshire Council (NLC) and the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership (CVGNP).
The hydrological study aims to further inform the masterplanning processes to assist with the sustainable development objectives
of the Community Growth Areas (CGAs) in eastern Glasgow and at Gartcosh and Glenboig in North Lanarkshire.
The long term vision for the Gartloch / Gartcosh site is to create a wetland park of national significance provisionally named ‘The
Seven Lochs Wetland Park’. The challenge is to blend predicted community growth with the natural environment. Flood risk and
drainage of surface water are at the root of this vision and so an understanding is sought of the hydrological interactions within
the area, giving the partnership information to take forward the sensitive blending of community growth and the existing water
environment in a surface water management plan and community masterplan.
The holistic approach will assist the partnership in fulfilling five underlying objectives of the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic
Drainage Plan (MGSDP).
1. Flood risk reduction
2. River water quality improvement
3. Enabling economic development
4. Habitat improvement
5. Integrated investment planning
AECOM have prepared a hydrological study for the site and a separate Surface Water Management Strategy. This includes the
definition of areas that would flood for return periods of 50%, 10%, 3.33%, 2%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.2% AEP events (2, 10, 30, 50,
100, 200 and 500 year return periods) with consideration given to a climate change allowance of 30%. The study includes
consideration of the sewerage system involving Integrated Drainage Models and reference to the interactions with the surface
water regime.
1.2 Location
The study area is located within the central belt of Scotland lying within the boundaries of both Glasgow City Council and North
Lanarkshire Council and forms parts of the Glasgow Green Belt, with the site encompassing approximately 24km2.
The plan in Figure 1.1 shows the extent of the study area which stretches from Hogganfield Loch in the west to Woodend Loch
and Lochend Loch in the east.
The western edge of the site is situated 5km to the east of Glasgow City Centre. The study area stretches for 8.7km east to west
at its widest extents from the east end of Glasgow towards Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire.
The location within the central belt provides an opportunity for the study area to be of national significance with the creation of a
new wetland park with good transport connections. The park boundary connects directly to the eastern edge of the Glasgow City
metropolis, with Coatbridge lying to the eastern edge of the proposed park, shown in Figure 1.2, Appendix D. The park is
surrounded by established communities on all sides.
1 Introduction
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 2
Figure 1.1: Hydrological Study Area
Council Boundary
Study Area Boundary
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 3
1.3 Site Composition
Much of the area is low lying rural in character and mainly undeveloped. The site is surrounded by low density housing
developments on all sides. The land is principally planar in character interspersed with a number of small drumlins and consisting
of open fields and hedgerows. There are large traces of historic peat cutting and former mining activities such as bings.
A substantial proportion of the study area is composed of natural or semi-natural open green space in the form of open water,
woodland, wetland and moss. There are pockets of scattered woodland which include field boundaries and riparian corridors as
well as plantation, community, mature estate and dense semi-natural woodland, along with substantial peat deposits.
Two large public parks, Drumpellier and Hogganfield Parks, are located along the periphery of the study area.
Water is a dominant feature of the landscape in the form of open water, burns and seasonally flooded or persistently wet ground
with a complex catchment area converging on the Bothlin Burn then draining to the east and north.
The site contains multiple wetlands including seven shallow kettle ponds or ‘depressions’ formed by the glacial retreat during the
last ice age and referred to as the ‘Garnkirk chain’. Interspersed within the wetlands are areas of agricultural land (both working
and fallow), and areas of ancient and long established woodland and grassland. The site is of considerable ecological
importance for wildlife and contains one of the largest reed bed habitats in central Scotland.
Along with the lochs there are a number of watercourses, drainage ditches, small ponds and wetlands which form a complex
system along which water moves through the area. The natural lochs vary from the extensively modified banks of Hogganfield
and Lochend Loch to the agricultural boundaries of Gartloch Ponds through to the well vegetated margins of Bishop Loch and
Woodend Loch.
Several drainage ditches have become blocked, either accidentally or deliberately, whilst others have become blocked through
the natural process of siltation.
The main water bodies of the study area include:
• Hogganfield Loch
• Frankfield Loch
• Bishop Loch
• Johnston Loch
• Lochend Loch
• Woodend Loch
• The ponds and pools of Gartloch Local Nature Reserve and Garnqueen Loch
• The emerging Gartloch Pools; (new pools emerging at Gartloch may be the result of former mining activity)
The main watercourses within the area include:
• Bothlin Burn
• Molendinar Burn
• Bishop Burn
• Tolcross Burn
• Whamflet Burn
Existing area designations on the site include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and a
country park at Drumpellier.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 4
Figure 1.3: Site Characteristics
Images provided by Collective Architecture.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 5
2.1 Background Documents
A number of sources have being used to collate background hydrological and hydrogeological information about the area. These
are included in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Background data
Data Type Data Name Source
General spatial data
GIS layer indicating study site boundary GCC/NLC
LiDAR / DTM data GCC/NLC
OS Mapping - Mastermap, 1:10k, 1:50k GCC/NLC
Aerial Photography GCC/NLC
Strategic Environmental Planning Study for Easterhouse / Gartloch Area GCC
Cityplan 2 GIS layers GCC
Core paths GCC/NLC
Landscape / ecological / cultural designations GCC/NLC
IHN Habitat Modelling GCV
Utilities / Services information GCC/NLC
Sewer flood risk GL01 Dalmarnock sewer network model SW
GL02 Dalmuir sewer network model SW
NL09 Daldowie sewer network model (Coatbridge DAP model) SW
Historic sewer flooding information SW
Hydrological/ Fluvial flood risk
Historic flood information e.g. mapping, reports GCC/NLC
SEPA digital flood maps GCC/NLC
Flood risk assessment reports GCC/NLC
-Gartloch Farm
-Drumpellier Lawns, Bargeddie Drainage Assessment (T.Lawrie & Partners)
-Drumpellier Lawns, Bargeddie Flood Assessment (Envirocentre)
-Lochend, Easterhouse Flood Assessment & Drainage Review (Kaya Consulting)
-Frankfield Loch, Stepps, Environmental Statement (Keppie)
Bothlin Burn @ Auchengeich gauging data SEPA
Molendinar Burn pumping system info Strathclyde University Estates
Tolcross Burn manhole survey GCC
Whamflet Burn manhole survey GCC
IDP model cross section data GCC/Halcrow
National Pluvial dataset GCC
2 Data Collection
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 6
Data Type Data Name Source
Hydrogeological Geological Mapping GCC
Geological Mapping NLC and/or BGS
Groundwater Level Data GCC
Groundwater Level Data NLC
Groundwater Level Data BGS
Groundwater Quality Data GCC
Groundwater Quality Data NLC
Groundwater Quality Data BGS
Previous Site Investigation Data GCC
Previous Site Investigation Data NLC
Previous Site Investigation Data BGS
Mine Abandonment Plans GCC/NLC and BGS
Mine Dewatering History/Records GCC/NLC and SEPA/CA and BGS
Historical Mapping GCC
Historical Mapping NLC
Minewater Pollution Incidents GCC/NLC and SEPA/CA
Shallow mine workings polygons (shape / tab files) GCC or CA
minewater discharges CA
Masterplan Seven Lochs Wetland Park - Draft Masterplan and visioning study Collective Architecture
2.2 Topographic Survey and Ground Model Data
A topographical survey of the watercourses in the site boundary was specified by AECOM and carried out by Loy surveys Ltd in
April 2011. This resulted in a substantial amount of detailed topographic data including river cross-sections of the Bothlin Burn,
Molendinar Burn and Bishop Burn at approximate 25m to 50m intervals, and any structures on the watercourses. No survey data
was specified on the Tolcross Burn and Whamflet Burn as these watercourses were already included in network models.
The accuracy of the survey is commensurate with 1:500 scale as detailed in the RICS publication: ‘Specification for Surveys of
Land, Buildings and Utility Services at scales 1:500 and larger’.
The topographic survey data was enhanced by LiDAR data, made available from GCC, and NextMap data from NLC. The more
accurate LiDAR covers the majority of the site, with small areas to the east and north east of the site covered only by Nextmap,
shown in Figure 2.1, Appendix D. The LiDAR and Nextmap data was used to generate a ground model for use by the hydraulic
model to extend surveyed cross sections into the floodplain, and to determine floodplain storage areas.
Nextmap has a stated vertical accuracy of + 1.0m, and horizontal accuracy of + 2.5m, which is insufficient for floodplain mapping
required for this project. Topographic survey of this floodplain area at 10m postings was considered but rejected as too costly.
Instead surveyed river sections were extended 10m from either bank into the floodplain, rather than the 5m specified elsewhere,
to give an overlap of 20m at each river cross section between surveyed levels and Nextmap data.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 7
Surveyed levels in overbank areas were then compared with Nextmap levels at the 72 sections outwith the LiDAR coverage.
This exercise ascertained that there was no consistent difference between surveyed and Nextmap levels to allow the Nextmap
data to be corrected by single value. Where surveyed sections within this area required to be extended to accommodate the
flows being modelled, this was done in the first instance using Nextmap data. The level difference between the last surveyed
point at each end of the section and the Nextmap data was then determined, and the extended lengths of the section corrected
by this difference.
A further issue with the ground model within the area covered by LiDAR was also identified. Whilst undertaking hydraulic
modelling of the Bothlin Burn, it became apparent that there were anomolous ground levels in the area downstream of Bishop
Loch. This area is marshy and was overgrown with scrubby vegetation and tall grasses when the site was visited in January
2011. Inspection of the LiDAR levels in this area indicate ground levels in the region of 1 – 1.6 m higher than the loch level
indicated by the LiDAR data (see Figure 2.2), and a similar amount higher than the topographic survey data in the area.
It is considered that the anomaly in ground levels in this area is due to the post-processing procedure used to produce the “bare
earth” digital terrain model from the raw survey data. Buildings and vegetation are removed from raw elevation data using an
algorithm. It is possible that this area has not been identified as heavily vegetated, and resulting LiDAR levels are higher than
ground level.
The area sits within the Seven Lochs Wetland Park, and may play an important role in the development of the Wetland Park with
a proposal to create a new wetland area in this location. The area also provides the only realistic location in which flood
attenuation could be located within the catchment to reduce flooding downstream. Accurate ground levels are therefore required
to enable this to be accurately assessed. Further topographic survey was specified in this area to allow the ground model to be
adjusted to more accurately reflect actual ground levels. Some additional survey was carried out in July 2011; however, due to
the ground conditions, the coverage of point levels that could be surveyed without compromising health and safety of the survey
team was limited and served only to confirm the previously estimated anomaly in levels. Ground levels in this area were
therefore reduced wholesale by a figure of 1.3m. The resulting modelled flood levels, flood extents and pass forward flows in this
area will therefore be less accurate than the remainder of the model.
New survey data of the outlet at Hogganfield Loch was received from David Robertson of GCC, which clarified some issues but
some uncertainties remain regarding pipe connections downstream. These could only be clarified by CCTV survey which is
outwith the scope of this project. The model accuracy may therefore be compromised in this area.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 8
Figure 2.2: Area of anomalous LiDAR data
2.3 Pluvial Data Set
AECOM received pluvial outlines for the 200 year and 30 year events from GCC. These were generated by JBA Consulting in
2010, and are described in Glasgow Pluvial Flood Map, Methodology Report, Draft Report, September 2010. These outlines do
not include for climate change. The outlines were used to visually compare modelled flood extents and check locations of low
ground levels, and used in more detail in the development of the Surface Water Management Strategy.
2.4 Integrated Drainage Plan(s)
This study encompassed an assessment of the sewerage and drainage systems within the study area to evaluate and their
interaction with the wider surface water regime. The study area is covered by three Scottish Water drainage areas, Dalmarnock,
Dalmuir and Daldowie.
The catchment models for Dalmarnock and Dalmuir were provided by Scottish Water for use in this study. The Daldowie model
was not incorporated into the assessment as only a very small area of the site is within the drainage catchment and the surface
water drainage impact is negligible.
The existing Scottish Water sewer models were used to review and assess the interaction with the surface water system for the
area. The affect of the surface water flow interaction was then included in the hydraulic modelling of the watercourses, ponds
and wetlands system within the study area.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 9
2.5 Historic Data
No historic flood outlines exist for the area.
2.6 Molendinar Burn Pumping Station
Frankfield Loch is linked via the Molendinar Burn to Hogganfield Loch. Downstream of Frankfield Loch, the watercourse flows
through Strathclyde University playing fields at Stepps. Originally the Molendinar Burn flowed naturally into the Hogganfield Loch
under a small vertical difference. The small vertical difference inhibited natural drainage and resulted in flooding upstream. In
addition, it is understood that Hogganfield Loch levels were raised artificially for recreational purposes. As a result, a pumping
station was installed on the Molendinar Burn at the western boundary of the playing fields at Avenue End Road, and maintained
by Strathclyde University (Figure 2.3 and 2.4). The pumping of water in the Molendinar Burn is controlled by float switches and
thus the water levels in the Molendinar Burn and hence Frankfield Loch are maintained.
There are 2 pumps, operating as duty/standby and each has a capacity of 94 l/s. Data on the pump capacity was collated from
site vists and information from the pump manufacturer, with Strathclyde University Estates Department providing drawings of the
downstream pipe arrangement. No drawings of the pumping station itself were available, so this was included in the specification
for topographic survey.
Figure 2.3: Location of Molendinar pumping station Figure 2.4: Molendinar Pumping Station
2.7 Hydrogeology
Data has been taken from existing site investigation reports for the areas (either reviewed at the GCC archive or obtained from
NLC and/or BGS information), mine abandonment plans and historic maps.
The spatial distribution of this data is varied, with some areas having very limited data (comprising of only a few boreholes) and
others more extensive coverage.
Limited data is available around: Gilmoreneuk, Bishop Loch and Gartloch Cottages, Cardowan Moss, Gartcosh, Johnston Loch
and Mount Ellen, Mount Ellen Golf Club and former Drumcaval Quarry, and Heathfield Cottage and fields south of the railway. A
slightly larger amount of data (e.g. an older site investigation or several boreholes) is available for: Commonhead/Neatherhouse
area, Townhead/ Lochend Loch, Woodend Loch, West Cottages/Gartloch Pool, Blackfaulds Farm, Frankfield Loch and
surrounding fields, Garnkirk, Heathfield Moss and the Garnqueen/Marnoch area.
Good data (comprising either a thorough recent investigation, or several older investigations) is available for: Baillie Moss,
Garcloss Farm, and the Former Gartloch Hospital.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 10
The areas of Easterhouse, Glasgow Fort, and the former Gartcosh Steelworks have been extensively investigated in the past,
and represent locations of the largest quantity and best quality of information.
Summarised below are the types of data sources. Appendix A lists all site investigation reports reviewed for hydrogeology, and
includes relevant comments on each.
Table 2.2 Hydrogeological Data Sources
Data type Source Comments
Geological Mapping
GCC generally confirmed by SI data
NLC- geotech leader David Millar
generally confirmed by SI data from GCC
Groundwater Level Data GCC and NLC geotechnical archives, BGS website
sporadic data; fairly limited spatially, Fairly limited in NLC area
Groundwater Quality Data
GCC and NLC geotechnical archives
sporadic data; fairly limited spatially, Fairly limited in NLC area
Historic OS Mapping GCC GIS database, NLC hardcopies of maps
Complete
Mine Abandonment Plans
mine abandonment plans
Reviewed at the BGS but did not provide much information; some water pumps shown occasionally with productivity amounts
Shallow mine workings polygons (shape/tab files)
GCC GIS database, NLC hardcopies of maps
Complete
Mine Dewatering History/Records
Scottish Water Not available
CA Archivist (Mark Gilmore)
no data for the 3 main collieries
SEPA Hydrogeologist (Judith Clarke)
no data
BGS internal report limited data
Minewater Pollution Incidents
SEPA Hydrogeology, Judith Clarke
no data
Minewater discharges CA Hydrogeologist- Ian Watson
discharge volumes too low to have an effect.
GCC – Glasgow City Council NLC – North Lanarkshire Council SEPA – Scottish Environment Protection Agency BGS – British Geological Survey
CA – The Coal Authority
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 11
3.1 Introduction
The groundwater studies are built on the information collated for the 2009 Scoping Study. In particular, records and data relating
to historic mining and the associated groundwater management and water levels have been collected from available sources.
Mining (particularily shallow coal mining) has been extensive in the area. The primary hydrological issues related to this are the
potential for current discharges from mine workings and future discharges. If the process of groundwater rebound following
cessation of mining is still ongoing, the water table will rise across most of the site area. This may affect the extent and
hydrology of existing water bodies and wetland areas, and areas which have historically been dry may flood.
Groundwater data has been collated from a variety of sources, with the primary objective of determining the extent with which
groundwater locally interacts with surface water, as well as the likelihood of any ongoing minewater rebound creating a future
interaction and adversely affecting surface water quality.
3.2 Geological Conditions
3.2.1 Superficial Deposits
Superficial deposits underlying the site typically comprise Glacial Till, with Lacustrine and/or Peat deposits along watercourses
and in low-lying areas. Superficial Deposits are typically between 5m and 15m thick, although there are locations where they are
not recorded by the BGS.
The Glacial Till generally comprises a sandy clay, with occasional cobbles and boulders. The Glacial Till is overlain by
Lacustrine deposits primarily along the Molendinar and Bothlin Burns, while Peat deposits are recorded along the Bothlin Burn
where it exits Bishop Loch, north of Gartcloss Farm.
Made Ground has been encountered locally in site investigations.
3.2.2 Bedrock Geology
Bedrock geology primarily consists of the productive Upper, Middle, and Lower Coal Measures and the Passage Formation of
Namurian age. The Passage Formation has been mined in the past for fireclay and limestone.
A few igneous sills exist onsite. Western Midland Valley Westphalian to Early Permian sills exist in the Glenboig area, in the
north-east of the site. Permian age ophitic alkali olivine-dolerite sills exist in the south-west corner of the site, at the western
edge of Easterhouse.
3.2.3 Mining
Coal mining was a major part of the economy in the area for almost 100 years. Collieries generally closed from the middle of the
20th century, with the last one shutting in 1985. Coal was mined at various locations in the southern half of the site, to the south
of the Comadie Fault. Less extensive Coal and Fire Clay workings are present in part of the Millstone Grit sequence in the north
of the site (in an approximate line from Craigendmuir to Garnqueen). Carboniferous Limestone was a minor component of the
mining heritage of this area, with a few quarries in the far north of the site, near Drumcaval, and to the west of the site.
Shallow coal mining has taken place primarily in the vicinity of Easterhouse and Drumpellier (approximately the south-eastern
quarter of the site). However, less extensive areas of shallow mining are recorded further west, see Figure 3.1. A property to
the north-east of Blackfaulds Farm further west reported subsidence problems (reported as “new sits”) in 1973.
3 Hydrogeology
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 12
Figure 3.1 Shallow mining and minewater discharges
3.3 Groundwater
3.3.1 Level
Groundwater level data was inferred through a review of Site Investigation Reports, Mine Dewatering History/Records, and
Minewater discharges. Unfortunately, because the available groundwater level data is sporadic and most records do not include
Ordnance Datum information, it is not possible to produce meaningful groundwater contours and interpretation of groundwater
levels in different parts of the site can only be indicative.
Shallow Groundwater
Shallow groundwater, in the superficial deposits, is sporadically present, indicating locally perched groundwater. The depths at
which such groundwater is recorded ranges from 0.5mgbl to 6.08mbgl, with enough variety that nothing definitive can be stated.
It is likely that the presence of significant perched groundwater in the superficial deposits is closely linked to surface water
features.
An area to the east of Blackfaulds Farm was investigated in 2000; this found that the eastern portion of that site, along the Bothlin
Burn,(approximate grid reference 666850 267200) was generally flooded (in keeping with the most recent aerial photos) and is
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 13
approximately coincident with the western edge of the newly formed Gartloch Pool. An investigation located a short distance to
the east, at the former Gartloch Hospital site stated that the "groundwater level is consistent with Bishop's Loch".
Bedrock Groundwater
Groundwater in the southern half of the site was typically at or near top of bedrock. Investigations in the north are more sparse,
but the water table appears to be at a greater depth.
As might be expected, the depth to groundwater associated with the former mineworkings varied significantly, with the shallowest
forming a surface resurgence (Figure 3.1) and the deepest noted at approximately 30m bgl. At Kilgarth Landfill (667850
271711), groundwater is generally present within 7 metres of the ground surface and varies from being encountered in the rock
near rockhead to being encountered as a “heavy flow” in the mine waste at depth.
Four pump tests undertaken in association with the proposed quarry at the aforementioned Ballie Moss Wood site did not find a
hydraulic connection between Woodend Loch and Bishops Loch; however, some criticism of the testing implied that the duration
of the test was too short. The results of the tests and conclusions drawn by others, along with our limited information on bedrock
groundwater levels, infer that the lochs are fed by surface water and shallow groundwater flows and are not connected to
bedrock groundwater.
3.3.2 Groundwater Quality
No minewater pollution incidents have been indicated by the Coal Authority. Chemical testing of the known onsite minewater
resurgence indicated a neutral pH and elevated sulphate, sodium, and potassium. Coal Authority records indicate Total Iron at
3.91 mg/l. Localised sources of contamination are understood to exist onsite, however available groundwater testing did not
indicate extensive sources. It is anticipated that some degree of groundwater contamination will be associated with the former
Gartcosh Steelworks, but our enquiries with the two councils and SEPA did not glean any information in this regard.
3.4 Anticipated Interaction with Surface Water
3.4.1 General Comments
Only one minewater discharge is known from The Coal Authority to exist onsite, with three others in the vicinity (Figure 3.1).
Many records of historic minewater pumping have been sourced. They are all from depths of greater than 300m. Given the
depth and dates when the various areas of pumping ceased, 1956 to 1985 (Figure 3.1), along with the historical map review not
indicating any additional pre-mining surface water or wetland features, suggests there is unlikely to be a significant future change
in water table levels related to mine-water rebound. In addition, the level data available for the bedrock water table, although
limited, suggests that there is likely to be limited current interaction with surface water and not anticipated to affect the flood
hydrology.
3.4.2 Frankfield Loch
At the start of the study, the hydrology of the loch was unclear, particularly what inflows may exist. It was therefore intended to
undertake a specific review of groundwater and mining data for this area. Unfortunately, no groundwater information was
obtained for the vicinity of Frankfield Loch. Superficial deposits are noted to be Glacial Till (generally a brown sandy clay), with a
thickness in excess of 9m. There are no known minewater discharges, mineshafts/adits or shallow mine workings in the vicinity
of the loch. It is therefore considered unlikely that Frankfield Loch is significantly affected by minewaters or, given the Glacial Till
thickness, any bedrock groundwater..
3.4.3 Gartloch Pool
This study set out to determine how Gartloch Pool (on the north side of Gartloch Road, grid reference 267230, 667300) formed,
and to test the hypothesis that it was created through minewater discharges or influenced by these.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 14
• Minewater is considered unlikely to be a significant factor in the formation of this pool. The reasons and evidence against
this include: a visual inspection of the pool indicates that it is of a higher quality (e.g. no iron staining) than typically found
from mine water discharges;
• no mineshafts/adits or indication of known shallow mine workings in the vicinity or immediately up gradient.
• none of the minewater discharges known by the Coal Authority are in this area.
Two possible alternative formation mechanisms for the pond have been derived:
• discussions with Donald Linn at GCC Geotechnical Dept (DRS) and a review of a stereoscopic photograph set from the
late 1940s suggest that it was more likely due to a blocked road culvert. The pond corresponds to the location of a road
culvert taking the Bothlin Burn under Gartloch Road and therefore if it was significantly blocked the burn would flood in the
location of Gartloch Pond. If this theory is correct, the more recent ponding to the south of the road would stem from an
alternate source.
• boreholes associated with the Gartheugh Sewer were drilled along the north-west side of Gartloch Pool. No date is given
on the logs, but as they are handwritten and in fathoms-feet-inches it is presumed that they are pre-1970s. It is not known
at this stage if this sewer was built, but if it was and is now leaking it may be partly or wholly responsible for the pond.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 15
4.1 Gartloch / Gartcosh Description
The Gartloch / Gartcosh study area comprises a total area of 24 km2. The annual average rainfall varies across the catchment is
between 923mm and 1052mm with the highest average rainfall occurring over the northwest to western areas of the catchment.
The site is a complex network of drainage ditches, lochs, wetland, seasonal waterbodies and ponds. There are burns flowing
through the site, which are tributaries of both the River Clyde and River Kelvin.
The principal watercourses in the catchment include:
• the Bothlin Burn;
• the Molendinar Burn;
• the Bishop Burn;
• the Whamflet Burn
• the Tolcross Burn.
The Bothlin Burn drains the majority of the study area. The burn initially flows east, and then northwards towards Kirkintilloch
and through a number of lochs located within the study area, including Gartloch Pools, Bishops Loch, Lochend Loch, Woodend
Loch and Johnston Loch.
The Molendinar Burn is located in the north west corner of the study area and flows south west from Stepps, through Frankfield
Loch and discharges into Hogganfield Loch.
The Bishop Burn flows south west from Drumpellier Park near the south east boundary of the study area, below the Monkland
Canal, before turning south and discharging into the Luggie Burn.
The Whamflet and Tolcross Burns are located in the south of the study area. The Whamflet burn is largely culverted, draining an
area of Easterhouse north of the M8. Following a short open channel reach between Springhill Parkway and Easterhouse Road,
it joins the Tolcross Burn near the station at Swinton. The Tolcross Burn drains Commonhead Moss to the east of Easterhouse,
and flows west beneath the M8 motorway to join the Whamflet Burn. Thereafter, the watercourse continues west along the line
of the railway.
Figure 4.1, Appendix D shows the principal hydraulic features of the study area, and Figure 4.2, Appendix D indicates the
catchment areas for each watercourse.
4.3 Hydrometric Data
Hydrometric data describes the regime of a river, its catchment and how it responds to rainfall events. Information concerning
water levels and river flows within the study catchment informs our understanding of the hydrological processes and improves
our estimates of flood flows. Flood estimates made using observed, local flow data are considered to be more reliable than those
based on catchment properties and empirical equations alone.
Flow data was available for the Bothlin Burn from the SEPA gauge at Auchengeich (Gauge no 84023, OS NGR NS 67800
71600), which lies some 5.5 km downstream of the northern edge of the study boundary. Annual maximum data was available
for this gauge from 1972.
No other hydrometric data was available for any other watercourse within the study area.
4.4 Hydrological Modelling Methodologies
The Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) is considered to represent best practice with regard to estimating design flood flows in the
UK, and is appropriate for use in this flood mapping project. The FEH advocates use of both a statistical methodology and
rainfall-runoff methodology for estimating the design flows for the AEP events listed in Table 4.1.
4 Hydrology
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 16
The statistical method is usually considered to be the most suitable method of estimating design flows on UK river catchments,
since it is based on observed flow data from approximately 1000 gauging stations. This methodology incorporates the effects of
reservoirs and floodplain storage on river flows and an adjustment procedure is available for application to permeable
catchments. In contrast, the rainfall-runoff approach is calibrated against a much smaller data-set of 143 UK catchments. This
methodology does not account for attenuation in the catchment, and consequently usually generates larger flow estimates.
A number of papers1, 2
have reported that the FSR/FEH rainfall-runoff method has a tendency to generate design flows of
excessive magnitude and consequently the statistical approach is usually preferred. In January 2006 the Revitalised Flood
Hydrograph (ReFH) rainfall-runoff method was released in an attempt to bring the FSR/FEH rainfall-runoff model into line with the
statistical method. The ReFH model has been calibrated against 101 catchments. However, ReFH is not recommended for use
in permeable, or urban catchments since none of the catchments used for calibration were permeable and there were very few
urban catchments included. It is also not recommended for use in Scotland, as it has not been calibrated against any Scottish
catchments. As a result the statistical method is still considered to provide the most robust flow estimates since it is based on the
larger dataset and is the most applicable method for the study.
However, the FEH statistical methodology only provides the user with an estimate of the peak flow, whereas the rainfall-runoff
methods provide a peak flow and a full hydrograph. In addition, it is less robust for smaller catchment areas since the number of
gauges measuring data from small catchment areas is low within the database of gauging stations.
The following discussions introduce how the hydrological modelling methodology was developed for the Gartloch hydraulic
model.
4.5 Bothlin Burn Hydrological modelling
4.5.1 Peak flow estimates
Peak flow estimates for the Bothlin Burn at the study area boundary were derived using the FEH statistical method. The
Auchengeich gauge was used as a donor gauge to determine the QMED (median annual flow), and a pooled curve derived to
generate peak flow estimates for the Annual Exceedence Probability (AEP) events required.
The FEH statistical method involves three steps:
• Estimation of the index flood (QMED)
• Derivation of the growth curve using a pooled group of hydrologically similar gauged catchments
• Construction of the flood frequency curve, as a product of QMED and the growth curve.
QMED was estimated for the Bothlin Burn using catchment characteristics derived from the FEH CDROM. An empirical equation
is provided in the FEH to estimate QMED from catchment characteristics. This figure was then adjusted using the observed
QMED for the Auchengeich gauge.
A pooled growth curve was then generated using WINFAP v3 software, which automatically generates a pooling group of
hydrologically similar gauged catchments. Manual adjustment can then be undertaken to add, delete, promote or demote
gauging stations within the pooling group, based on user expertise. Full details of the flow calculations are included in
Appendix B. The resulting peak flow estimates, measured at the catchment outlet are shown in Table 4.1.
1 Spencer, P. and Walsh, P., (1999). The Flood Estimation Handbook: Users’ perspectives from North West England. In: Proc. 34
th MAFF Conf.
River and Coastal Engineers, Keele, UK. 2 Ashfaq, A. and Webster, P., (2002). Evaluation of the FEH rainfall-runoff method for catchments in the UK. J. CIWEM, 16, No. 3, 223-228.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 17
Table 4.1: Bothlin Burn peak flow estimates
AEP % Return period Peak flow (m3/s)
50% 2 year 6.1
10% 10 year 9.7
3.33% 30 year 12.2
2% 50 year 13.5
1% 100 year 15.3
0.5% 200 year 17.4
0.2% 500 year 20.5
4.5.2 Sub-catchment inflows
With the large number of lochs and wetlands within the catchment, it is important that the behaviour of water levels and storage
volumes are represented in the hydraulic model. To do this accurately, full hydrographs of flow against time are required, not just
a peak flow estimate. The Bothlin Burn catchment was split into subcatchments to represent inflow points to the hydraulic model.
Any lateral inflow from catchment areas between the inflow points were also accounted for. Catchment characteristics for the
subcatchments are shown in Appendix C and the inflow points are located in Figure 4.3, Appendix D.
Using the FEH rainfall-runoff method, flood hydrographs were generated for each subcatchment and for each lateral inflow for
the AEP events required. A diagrammatic representation of the flow inputs is shown in Figure 4.4. Once input into the hydraulic
model, the subcatchment hydrographs were scaled such that the cumulative flow at the catchment outlet matched the statistical
method estimates shown in Table 4.1.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 18
Figure 4.4: Bothlin Burn inflow diagram
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 19
4.6 Molendinar Burn
The Molendinar Burn flows south west from Stepps through a marshy area east of Loch Road towards Frankfield Loch. Previous
hydrological reports suggest that the burn discharged into Frankfield Loch through a culvert beneath Loch Road. However, the
culvert could not be located during site visits and it is thought that it has been removed or abandoned following raising of Loch
Road, carried out in conjunction with the Frankfield Loch Development, recently constructed to the east of the loch. A new
culvert has been provided at a higher level (Figure 4.5). A ditch has been cut from the Molendinar Burn just to the east of Loch
Road that runs northwards before entering a culvert beneath Cumbernauld Road (Figure 4.6), and is thought to discharge into
the Garnkirk Burn to the north of the railway line. Comparison of surveyed levels of the watercourse, structures and loch level
suggest that, certainly at lower flows, the Molendinar Burn upstream of Frankfield Loch is entirely diverted into the Garnkirk Burn.
Water would flow from Frankfield Loch east through the new culvert and into the Molendinar Burn, from where it would discharge
into the Garnkirk Burn.
Figure 4.5: New culvert below Loch Road
West (Frankfield Loch) side of culvert East side of culvert
Figure 4.6: Diversion ditch to Garnkirk Burn
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 20
At the west side of Frankfield Loch, the Molendinar Burn flows west through Strathclyde University playing fields to a pumping
station located just east of Avenue End Road. The pumped flow then enters a culverted reach which discharges into Hogganfield
Loch. The Molendinar is then discharged from Hogganfield Loch via a piped section into an open channel reach to the east of
Cumbernauld Road.
The Molendinar Burn was split into subcatchments located in Figure 4.7, and shown diagrammatically in Figure 4.8. Catchment
descriptors are shown in Appendix C. The Molendinar Burn in this location has a small catchment area of only 2.34km2 to the
outlet of Hogganfield Loch. Because of this small catchment size, and due to the lack of any gauged data on the watercourse,
the FEH statistical method was inappropriate. The FEH rainfall-runoff method was therefore used to generate flood hydrographs
of the required AEP events.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 21
Figure 4.7: Molendinar inflow points
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 22
Figure 4.8: Molendinar inflow diagram
4.7 Bishop Burn
The Bishop Burn flows through the south east corner of the Gartloch/Gartcosh site area. It drains much of Drumpellier Country
Park, flowing south west out of the park, beneath the Monkland Canal, Oakridge Road and Coatbridge Road, before discharging
into the Luggie Burn. The Bishopburn waste weir on the Monkland Canal discharges excess water from the canal into the Bishop
Burn. However previous modelling of the canal by AECOM suggests the weir does not discharge during events up to and
including the 0.5% AEP.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 23
Similar to the Molendinar Burn, the catchment area of Bishop Burn is small, and there is no gauging data available.
Consequently, the rainfall runoff method has been used to generate inflow hydrographs for the hydraulic model. The catchment
characteristics used are shown in Appendix C and Figure 4.9 below locates the inflow point and waste weir.
Figure 4.9: Bishop Burn Inflow Point
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 24
4.8 Tolcross and Whamflet Burns
The Tolcross and Whamflet Burns are explicitly represented in the Dalmarnock IDP model. As such, there was no requirement
to construct new models of the watercourses and consequently no requirement to generate inflow hydrographs. The exception
was for the rural subcatchment at the upstream end of the Tolcross Burn. The audit report on the IDP model suggested this
would be better represented by an FEH rainfall-runoff boundary. This amendment was made in the model. The catchment
characteristics used can be found in Appendix C.
4.9 Summary
The principal objective of this hydrological assessment was to derive the design flood hydrology for the Gartloch / Gartcosh
catchment, to inform the hydraulic modelling component of the flood mapping.
FEH statistical methodology was applied to determine design flow estimates for the Bothlin Burn, using the flow gauging record
on the Bothlin Burn at Auchengeich as a donor for data transfer. Hydrographs for subcatchments within the total catchment of
Bothlin Burn were estimated using the FEH rainfall runoff method, which were then scaled to match the statistical estimate.
For the remaining watercourses, catchment areas were too small and there was no suitable donor gauges for the FEH statistical
method to be applied robustly. Flow estimates on these watercourses were estimated using the FEH rainfall runoff method.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 25
5.1 Introduction
A hydraulic model of the Gartloch / Gartcosh watercourses throughout the study area was constructed using Infoworks RS
hydraulic modelling and mapping software. Infoworks RS is recognised industry software for use in river modelling and hydraulic
analysis, which combines the industry standard 1D ISIS flow engine with GIS functionality and a database storage structure.
The objectives of the modelling are to model the fluvial flood extents within the Gartloch / Gartcosh catchment by constructing 1D
hydrodynamic models of the watercourses within the study area.
In the hydraulic models, data used for the physical representation of the river channels, bridges and culverts have been taken
from the topographic survey carried out in April 2011 for Bothlin Burn, and in July for Molendinar Burn and Bishop Burn. LiDAR
data provided by Glasgow City Council, and Nextmap provided by North Lanarkshire Council was used in representing the out of
bank floodplain areas within the model reach.
In order to be able to identify and map the areas of inundation within the study area, it was necessary to estimate the magnitude
of design flow events for the hydraulic model.
To derive the design flows required, it is necessary to develop an understanding of the flood hydrology of the catchment and
undertake an analysis of the hydrometric data available. This leads to an informed hydrological modelling analysis that derives a
sensible set of flood estimates for the various Annual Exceedence Probability (AEP) events required. The flow estimation
procedures employed are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
The extent of the study/model extents was constructed to the following downstream boundaries:
• Bothlin Burn – to the crossing of the A80;
• Whamflet Burn/Tolcross Burn – to the A8
• Bishop Burn – to downstream of Coatbridge road;
• Molendinar Burn – to the outlet of Hogganfield Loch;
5.2 Bothlin Burn Model
5.2.1 Design Events
A broad spectrum of design events were run for the hydraulic model which included the 50%, 20%, 10%, 3.33%, 3.33% +30%
CC, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, 0.5%+30% CC and 0.2% scenarios.
Unsteady state runs were also carried out for each of the above AEP scenarios with critical storm durations based on both the
total catchment and the individual sub-catchments. The rainfall runoff method is based on a design rainfall event of specified
duration. Short storm durations will give hydrographs with a high peak but low volume, and conversely long storm durations will
give hydrographs with a lower peak but larger flood volume. The critical event for any catchment is a function of the combination
of flood peak and volume, and the critical duration will tend to increase with catchment area. Therefore modelling one critical
duration for the total catchment area to the downstream point, may underestimate peak water levels in areas higher up the
catchment. By modelling both subcatchment and total catchment critical durations, it is ensured that the maximum flood extent
envelope for all areas within the catchment can be mapped. The calculated critical durations are shown in Table 5.1.
5 Hydraulic Modelling
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 26
Table 5.1: Total and individual catchment critical durations
Catchment Catchment
critical
duration
(hrs)
Total
catchment
critical
duration (hrs)
Drainage model
Main #1 B1 2.9 10.9 Dalmarnock
B2 5.3 10.9 Dalmarnock
B3 5.9 10.9 Dalmarnock
Trib #1 B6 5.9 10.9 Dalmarnock
Trib #2 B5 3.5 10.9 none
Main #2 B16 6.5 10.9 Dalmarnock
Trib #3 B14ds 4.3 10.9 Dalmuir
B13 5.3 10.9 Dalmuir
B15 6.7 10.9 Dalmuir
Trib #4 B8 3.3 10.9 Dalmuir
B9 5.9 10.9 Dalmuir
B10 6.7 10.9 Dalmuir
Main #3 B7 7.9 10.9 Dalmarnock & Dalmuir
Main #4 B17 7.5 10.9 Dalmarnock & Dalmuir
Main #5 B11 9.3 10.9 Dalmarnock & Dalmuir
Main #6 B18 10.9 10.9 Dalmarnock & Dalmuir
5.2.2 Model Description
See Figures 4.3 and 4.4 for an overall view of the Bothlin Burn catchment. The Bothlin burn originates from a spring located to
the west of the study area, south of Red Deer village residential park, and flows easterly through agricultural grazing lands to the
Gartloch pools, so called as there is a newer emerging permanent pond forming on the easterly side of the B806 Garthloch
roadway, underneath which the exiting flows of the primary Garthloch pond get culverted easterly. North Lanarkshire Council
have informed AECOM that this road is reportedly periodically flooded due to a combination of a dip in its elevation at this
location combined with high pond water levels at particular periods during the year. The Bothlin Burn flow emerges from the
Gartloch pools and continues through agricultural land which becomes marshier as it flows into Bishop Loch with a surface area
of approximately 23ha.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 27
Figure 5.1: B806 Garthloch Road Figure 5.2: Bishop Loch
Bishop Loch is fed by a further tributary from the south-east which emanates just west of Lochend Road. Flow from the Bishops
Loch exits at two outlet points at its north side, one of which is fed into from the east by a tributary which runs through both the
Lochend Loch (c.14.1ha) and Woodend Loch (c.20ha). A sharp crested weir is located at the outlet of the Lochend Loch which
leads into a tapering concrete channel with sluice gate for effective regulation of the water level in the loch for recreation
activities.
Figure 5.3: Woodend Loch Figure 5.4: Sluice Gate at Lochend Loch
The two tributaries of the Bishop Loch outlet points converge further downstream in marshy lands and continue to flow north-
easterly towards the M73 motorway. Before the channel reaches the M73, a further Bothlin Burn tributary enters from the west,
which arises in the Muirhead area and is contributed to from the north by Johnston Loch (Figure 5.5). This tributary enters a long
culvert south of Inverary Drive to the west of Gartcosh (Figure 5.6), and emerges south of the B806 road.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 28
Figure 5.5: Johnston Loch Figure 5.6: Culvert entrance near Inverary Drive
The Bothlin Burn then flows through a culvert under the M73 where it continues westerly, joining with a tributary emanating from
the Marnock area, before taking an abrupt turn northwards and is culverted under the railway line (Figure 5.7). The Bothlin Burn
channel continues north-east before changing direction north westerly and again is culverted for some 700m under the railway
line, the site of the former Gartcosh Steelworks, and Auldyards Road. It flows north east in open channel, is culverted under
Johnston Road, before turning west into a culvert beneath the M73. North of the M73, the burn flows north through the Mount
Ellen golf club before being culverted under Drumcavel Road (Figure 5.8), and exiting the study boundary.
Figure 5.7: Railway culvert Figure 5.8 Culvert at below Drumcavel Road
The hydraulic model of the Bothlin Burn consisted of cross-sections connected by links, hydraulic structures and lochs. The
cross-sections and hydraulic structures were created in RS using topographic survey data. The lochs were modelled using
InfoWorks RS storage areas nodes which allowed a polygon to be created over the LiDAR ground model data to create a depth-
area relationship.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 29
In the case of the Bothlin Burn channel downstream of Bishops loch, it was noted that the LiDAR levels indicated ground model
levels that were 1 – 1.6m higher than the loch level and similarly for the topographic survey data in the area. For the higher AEP
runs, where overtopping of the channel banks was occurring, extrapolating the surveyed cross-sections into the LiDAR data to
accommodate the overtopping flows would be unfeasibly inaccurate. This necessitated the removal of the channel cross-sections
downstream of Bishops Loch to the confluence point with its tributary to the east, and its replacement with an Infoworks storage
area node. The depth-area relationship for the storage area was created using the amended ground model, based on additional
spot level survey data in the area, as described in Section 2.2. For the lower AEP scenario’s where channel banks were not
being overtopped, the channel cross sections replaced the storage area, see Figure 5.9 for a schematic of the model.
Some sections of the Bothlin Burn model required the surveyed cross-sections to be extended into the floodplain. In these
locations, the cross-sections were extended manually into the floodplain and the ground model used to generate ground levels
(Figure 5.10).
In other areas of floodplain where overtopping of the banks occurred, and it was judged that little flow conveyance would occur,
inundation of the floodplain was represented using an Infoworks storage area node. The representative channel was connected
to the storage area using a lateral spill (Figure 5.11).
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 30
Figure 5.9: Bothlin Burn model schematic
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 31
Figure 5.10: Example sections extended into floodplain
Note for the following model figures the lighter blue shading represents Flood Plains which are linked to Storage areas, the
darker blue shaded areas.
Flood Plain
Storage Areas
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 32
Figure 5.11: Example floodplain storage area connected by spill units
5.2.3 Model Inflows
Boundary point inflow points to the Bothlin Burn model are illustrated in Figure 4.4. Point inflow boundaries represented inflow
from each subcatchment or tributary, and lateral inflows to represent flow from additional catchment area between two modelling
points were included. These inflows were distributed along reach based on the length of river channel. Both point and lateral
inflows were generated using FEH rainfall runoff boundary nodes in the Infoworks model, the catchment characteristics of which
are included in Appendix C.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 33
5.3 Molendinar Burn Model
5.3.1 Model Description
The hydrology and flow paths of the Molendinar Burn are described in Section 4.6. As described in this section, the Molendinar
Burn flows west through a marshy area east of Loch Road towards Loch Road. Previously, it seems that it would then discharge
into Frankfield Loch via a culvert beneath Loch Road. However no sign of this culvert was found during site inspection, and it is
through that it may be redundant following raising of Loch Road for the Frankfield Loch Development. A new culvert has been
provided at a higher level (Figure 4.7), causing flow to be diverted along a bypass ditch (Figure 4.8) flowing north and
discharging into the Garnkirk Burn on the other side of the railway line.
At the east side of Frankfield Loch, flow is discharged into the Molendinar Burn and flows through the Strathclyde University
playing fields,. A number of structures affect the hydraulics of the channel in this reach, including a culvert with road
embankment across the channel, Figure 5.12, wooden footbridge Figure 5.13, and twin culvert road bridge Figure 5.14. The
channel in this reach is generally sluggish and weedy, Figure 5.15.
Figure 5.12: Culvert with road embankment Figure 5.13: Wooden footbridge
Figure 5.14: Twin pipe road bridge Figure 5.15: Channel through playing fields
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 34
A pumping station is located just upstream of where the watercourse passes beneath Avenue End Road Figure 5.16. Two
pumps (duty-standby) pump water from the watercourse into a chamber. Trigger levels at the pump inlet channel turn the pump
on when the water level rises above the upper trigger level, and off when the water level drops below the lower trigger level. The
chamber discharges into 1m square box culvert, taking flow under the road and into a manhole on the grassy area to the west of
the road. From here, flow is piped through an 18” diameter pipe, through a series of manholes located along the walkway
towards Hogganfield Loch, before being discharged into the loch Figure 5.17.
Figure 5.16: Stepps pumping station Figure 5.17: Outfall into Hogganfield Loch
The hydraulic model (Figure 5.18) of the Molendinar Burn consisted of channel cross sections connected by links, hydraulic
structures and lochs. The cross sections and hydraulic structures were created in RS using topographic survey data. Where
necessary, cross sections were extended using the ground model data. Lochs were modelled using InfoWorks RS storage area
nodes. The pumping station was modelled using an InfoWorks RS pump node, with pump curve data input from manufacturer’s
information, and logical rules to reflect the trigger levels.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 35
Figure 5.18: Molendinar Burn InfoWorks RS model
5.3.2 Model Inflows
Boundary point inflow points to the Molendinar are illustrated in Figure 4.7. Point inflow boundaries represented inflow from
each tributary or subcatchment (Mol_1 and Inter Mol_1-Mol_2), and lateral inflow to represent flow from the additional catchment
area between Frankfield and Hogganfield Loch. Both point and lateral inflows were generated using FEH rainfall runoff boundary
nodes in the InfoWorks model, the catchment characteristics of which are included in Appendix C.
5.4 Bishop Burn Model
5.4.1 Model Description
Bishop Burn flows through the south east corner of the study area, flowing south west from the park before being culverted
beneath the Monkland Canal. The upstream extent of the model is at the outlet of this culvert. Continuing south west, the
watercourse flows through a short stretch of woodland towards the development off Oakridge Road. A rectangular screened
culvert takes the burn beneath Oakridge Road, Figure 5.19. From the culvert outlet, the burn flows down a roughly trapezoidal
channel with grassed banks (Figure 5.20) to a second screened culvert beneath Coatbridge Road (Figure 5.21), the boundary of
the study area. Downstream of Coatbridge Road, the channel gradient steepens Figure 5.22, and some 350m downstream of
the culvert outlet, the watercourse enters another culvert before discharging to the Luggie Burn. The downstream extent of the
model is some 100m downstream of the Coatbridge Road culvert outlet.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 36
Figure 5.19: Culvert beneath Oakridge Road Figure 5.20: Channel between Oakridge and Coatbridge Road
Figure 5.21: Culvert beneath Coatbridge Road Figure 5.22: Channel downstream of Oakridge Road
Again the channel cross sections and hydraulic structures are represented in Infoworks as nodes using information from
topographic survey data. Overbank or floodplain areas were represented using ground model data where necessary.
Figure 5.23 shows a screen shot of the model.
5.4.2 Model Inflows
The Bishop Burn model has simpy one point inflow at the upstream end, representing flow generated by the total catchment
down to its confluence with the Luggie Burn (Figure 4.11).
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 37
Figure 5.23: Bishop Burn model screenshot
5.5 Surface Water Modelling
This study encompassed an assessment of the sewerage and drainage systems within the study area to evaluate and their
interaction with the wider surface water regime.
The existing Scottish Water sewer models were used to review and assess the interaction with the surface water system for the
area. The affect of the surface water flow interaction was then included in the hydraulic modelling of the watercourses, ponds
and wetlands system within the study area.
The study area is covered by three Scottish Water drainage areas, Dalmarnock, Dalmuir and Daldowie; the catchment models for
Dalmarnock and Dalmuir were provided by Scottish Water for use in this study. The Daldowie model was not incorporated into
the assessment as only a very small area of the site is within the Dalmuir drainage catchment and the surface water drainage
impact is negligible.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 38
The majority of the urban and suburban areas within the study area are drained by combined sewer systems, draining both foul
and surface water within the same pipe network. These combines systems effectively remove surface water from the catchment
by draining surface water from the urbanised areas and discharging to the River Clyde vial the Dalmarnock, Dalmuir or Daldowie
sewer and waste-water treatment systems.
These combined systems are considered to remove water from the natural contributing catchments of the study area up to the
capacity of the drainage system, drainage systems are generally designed for different rainfall conditions; lower extremity (AEP)
and shorted duration rainfall, than is typically considered for hydrological studies or flood protection from natural catchments and
watercourses.
Where watercourses are wholly represented in the drainage area model, the models where used to evaluate flood levels and the
extent of flood inundation. This is only the case where watercourses are extensively culverted and there are significant
associated drainage systems.
In order to represent the affect of the combined drainage systems within the wider natural catchment, the urban areas were
removed from the contributing catchment and hydrology, and replaced with a flow hydrograph to represent the runoff from the
urban area which would occur in events where the capacity of the combined drainage system is exceeded. This runoff
hydrograph was derived from the results of the catchment sewer and drainage models.
5.5.1 Whamflet Burn and Tolcross Burn (Dalmarnock catchment model)
The Whamflet and Tolcross Burns through the study area are explicitly represented within the Dalmarnock catchment model. In
order to properly represent overland flow and flood depths during out of bank flood events; flood levels and the extent of
inundation were derived from the Dalmarnock catchment model using the two dimensional flow analysis within Infoworks CS 2D
incorporating the Digital Terrain Model (DTM).
5.5.2 Bothlin Burn (Dalmarnock and Dalmuir catchment models)
Within the southern part of the study area, south of Bishop Loch, parts of the urban areas of Easterhouse which are within the
natural catchment of Bishop Loch are drained by the Dalmarnock drainage network which removes surface water from the
catchment. The Dalmarnock catchment model was run for the critical durations for the wider catchment and the range of annual
exceedance probability events under consideration. Flooding within the catchment model, from rainfall in excess of the capacity
of the drainage system, was translated into an inflow hydrograph to represent the expected urban surface water runoff for use
within the Gartloch and Gartcosh model.
Urban areas in the northern part of the study area, Gartcosh and around Johnston Loch, are drained by the Dalmuir drainage
network; this removes surface water from the catchment that would otherwise contribute to natural catchment of the Bothlin Burn.
The Dalmuir catchment model was run for the critical durations for the wider catchment and the range of annual exceedance
probability events under consideration. Flooding within the catchment model, from rainfall in excess of the capacity of the
drainage system, was translated into an inflow hydrograph to represent the expected urban surface water runoff for use within
the Gartloch and Gartcosh catchment model.
In the Dalmuir drainage catchment there are also two combined sewer overflows (CSOs) within the Gartloch and Gartcosh study
area, one immediately south of Gartcosh and another south of Muirhead. These overflows spill to the local watercourse during
times when the flow in the drainage system is above the capacity of the downstream system. The spilling flow from these CSOs
during the flood events modelled is also taken into account in the Gartloch and Gartcosh modelling. The location of the drainage
model inflows and CSO’s are shown in Figure 5.1 (Appendix D).
5.6 Quality Assurance (QA) Checking
The Gartloch and Gartcosh models have undergone a series of QA checks throughout the construction process.
A number of error trapping procedures have been undertaken to detect obvious errors such as incorrect roughness values,
incorrectly specified panel markers, and incorrect link lengths.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 39
In addition, a series of random spot checks have been undertaken on the modelling of specific structures to check factors such
as schematisation, appropriate method, correct interpretation of survey drawings, data input and adequate audit trail.
Where deficiencies have been found, other similar structures in the reach have also been checked for similar problems and these
corrected as appropriate.
The final phase of checking involves the inspection of long and cross-section results to check for any obvious anomalies in the
water surface profile.
This is a good method of checking for indicators of excessive headlosses at structures, which may indicate that additional bypass
spills are required.
In addition to this peer checking, Infoworks RS has its own internal validation routine which checks the model data for errors prior
to a simulation. Following the validation check, the software highlights any issues to the user in the form of errors, warnings and
information messages.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 40
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 41
6 Results
6.1 Bothlin Burn Flood Extents
Modelled flood extents for 50%, 10%, 3.33%, 2%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.2% AEP events (2, 10, 30, 50, 100, 200 and 500 year return
periods) are shown in Figures 6.1 to 6.7. In addition, the effect of climate change on the 0.5% AEP event is shown in Figure
6.8.
Model results indicate that during the 50% AEP event (2 year return period), no properties or proposed development areas are at
risk of flooding. Main areas of flooding include:
• flooding to east and west of Craidendmuir caravan park, between Stepps and Garthamlock, Gartloch Pools;
• downstream of Bishop Loch;
• upstream of the culvert beneath Gartloch Road, south of Inverary Drive, which extends across the field southwards to
Gartloch Road;
• between Lochend Loch and Gartcosh Road;
• west of Woodend Loch between Gartcosh Road and the M8;
• small area of flooding upstream of the culvert beneath Glenboig New Road at Glenboig – this may cause flooding of the
road;
• upstream and downstream of the railway culvert east of Kingshill Cottages;
• and minor out-of-bank flow from downstream of the culvert beneath Gartcosh Industrial Park, to the downstream extent of
the model at the A80 Cumbernauld Road.
During the 10% AEP event, in addition to these areas, flooding occurs in the marshy area between Gartloch Pools and Bishop
Loch, with Gartcosh Road flooding at this location; at Whitehill at the confluence of the branches of the Bothlin Burn flowing from
the east and west, upstream of the railway culvert; and Drumcavel Quarry near Mount Ellen Golf Course is inundated. However,
no properties appear to be at risk of flooding during this event.
Flood extents in the locations above are increased during the modelled 3.33% AEP event, but no properties are at risk of
flooding. Flooding of Gartcosh Road near Mid Cottages may occur due to spill from the flooded field between Inverary Drive and
Gartcosh Road. A small amount of flooding also begins to occur upstream of the road culvert beneath Lochend Road, south of
the Easterhouse North development area.
Similarly, during the 2% AEP event (50 year return period), flood extents in these locations are increased. The now extensive
flooding of the fields between Inverary Drive and Gartcosh Road puts some properties to the south of Inverary Drive at risk of
flooding. There is additional flooding to the north of the Inverary estate, between Johnston Loch and the railway culvert. This
flooded area lies to the west of one of the proposed Gartcosh proposed development areas.
Flood extents do not increase dramatically for the 1%, 0.5% and 0.2% AEP events, but more properties on Inverary Drive are at
risk (approximately 16 properties at the 0.5% AEP event).
The most extreme flood extents are predicted for the 0.5% AEP + climate change event. This predicts flood levels of
approximately 79.5mAOD in the region of the proposed Gartcosh development, south of Johnston Loch. Flood levels for this
event in the region of the proposed private development south of Gartcosh Pools are approximately 77mAOD. Peak flood levels
near the Easterhouse North development area are approximately 78.25mAOD. Flood levels to the south of Glenboig
development area peak at approximately 82mAOD. A gap in the railway embankment allows flooding to the south of the railway
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 42
at this point, and some 2 km downstream, south of the south-west corner of the proposed development, the railway embankment
is overtopped, allowing further flooding to the south of the railway.
6.2 Tolcross Burn and Whamflet Burn Flood Extents.
Even at the 50% AEP event, flooding occurs at the upstream end of Tolcross Burn at Commonhead. The culvert at this location
causes a restriction and results in flooding upstream along the open channel reach between the culvert and Netherhouse Road.
This area of flooding lies within the Easterhouse south development area. The Tolcross Burn is also in open channel
downstream of the Commonhead culvert outlet, and flooding occurs both between the outlet and Netherhouse Road, and
between Netherhouse Road and the M8. However no properties are at risk of flooding.
Flood extents do not increase greatly during more severe events, with only small increases in depth. Upstream of the
Commonhead culvert, flood levels within the Easterhouse south development during the 0.5% AEP+ climate change event vary
from approximately 77.5mAOD to 73.75mAOD.
No flooding occurs from the Whamflet Burn during the 50% or 10% AEP events. At the 3.33% AEP event, flooding occurs from
the manhole on the verge of the M8 at Easterhouse. The manhole is located some 500m west of the Jimmy Young Bridge at
junction 9. 2-D overland flow modelling indicates this may flood a section of the M8, flowing east along the motorway from the
manhole and ponding beneath the bridge. At the 0.5% AEP event, depths beneath the bridge exceed 1m.
During the 0.5% + climate change and 0.2% AEP events, flooding also occurs from the 2 manholes upstream, causing flooding at
Baldinnie Road and Freuchie Street, although no properties are predicted to be affected.
6.3 Molendinar Burn Flood Extents
Modelled water levels to the east of Loch Road, even for the most extreme event modelled, are below the level of the new culvert
beneath Loch Road, connecting Frankfield Loch with the catchment to the east. Frankfield Loch therefore receives no flow from
the catchment to the east, with this flow entirely diverted to the Garnkirk Burn. For the higher flood events, levels in Frankfield
Loch are such that the culvert below Loch Road discharges a small amount of flow from Frankfield Loch to the watercourse to the
east. Ponding occurs to the east of Loch Road, but no properties are affected.
Downstream of Frankfield Loch, pump operation ensures there is negligible out-of-bank flow along the open channel section
between Frankfield Loch and the pumping station, even at the most extreme event modelled. No properties are affected.
6.4 Bishop Burn Flood Extents
A small amount of overbank flow is predicted along the Bishop Burn, upstream of the culvert below Oakbridge Road, and
upstream of the culvert below Coatbridge Road. However, no properties or infrastructure are predicted to be at risk of flooding,
and it does not affect any proposed development areas.
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 43
This document sets out to establish a baseline of the site to support the design study process by investigating all sources of
flooding including fluvial and pluvial flooding under a range of annual exceedance probabilities (AEP).
The report provides an assessment of flood risk from the watercourses in the area including a hydrological assessment to define
the potential floodplain areas under various annual exceedance probabilities up to 0.1% (500yr return period). An additional
allowance to account for estimated future climate change has being assessed for the 3.33% AEP and 0.5% AEP scenarios.
The report includes an assessment of the sewerage system in the study area and its interactions with the surface water regime.
The results show that no properties are currently at risk of flooding from the Tolcross, Whamflet, Molendinar or Bishop Burns.
Approximately 16 properties along Inverary drive, south of Gartcosh, are at risk of flooding from one of the tributaries of the
Bothlin Burn. The proposed development at Easterhouse south is affected by flooding from the upstream end of the Tolcross
Burn, even at the 50% AEP event, caused by the restriction of the culvert at Commonhead. Flooding from the Whamflet Burn
causes ponding of flood water on the M8 motorway, west of the Jimmy Young Bridge. Flood extents from the Bothlin Burn and
its tributaries impinge on the boundaries of proposed development areas at Easterhouse north, south of Gartloch Pools, at
Gartcosh south of Johnston Loch, and at Glenboig. Predicted flood levels should be taken into account when planning
development in these areas. Relevant flood levels indicating the maximum water levels experienced during the 0.5% AEP event
plus climate change are given in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1 – Indicative design flood levels for future development
Development location 0.5% + climate change flood level
(mAOD)
Easterhouse south 77.5 – 73.75
Easterhouse north 78.25
South of Gartloch Pools 77.0
Gartcosh, south of Johnston Loch 79.5
Glenboig 82.0
7.1 Hydrogeology
Although the quality and quantity of information collated in relation to local hydrogeology does not allow a very conclusive
assessment, it is not considered likely, that there is significant interaction between local hydrology and underlying groundwaters
and minewaters. Any minor interaction would not be significant in terms of the scale of flooding at any location.
There is no indication of the disappearance, reappearance, or significant change in size, of surface water features or wetland
areas on the historic OS maps reviewed, that could not be attributed to other factors (e.g. the construction of fish ponds and field
drains). The limited known mine water discharges onsite and in the vicinity are of insignificant volume. Although it is dangerous
to extrapolate, it is considered likely that, if any further mine water discharges were to form, they would be of a similar
insignificant magnitude. The age of the mine workings is such that rebound is likely to be complete. It is therefore concluded
that mine-water rebound is unlikely to affect surface water in the future.
7 Summary
AECOM Gartloch and Gartcosh Hydrological Study 44
Although data availability is inconsistent both spatially and historically for this study, it is considered unlikely that sufficient
additional data would be available to significantly affect these conclusions. The paucity of data, however, means that existing
unknown minewater features can’t be categorically ruled out.
AECOM
Appendix A – Site Investigation
Reports Reviewed
AECOM
Glasgow File Reference Date Details of Information
E144 nr
E51 nr
E92 nr
NE1 nr geologic information but no groundwater
NE1 nr geologic information but no groundwater
NE10 1973 shallow perched groundwater (1973 boreholes) only
NE11 nr
NE15 nr
NE19
1986-1989
Contains a Hydrogeological report on extracting peat (1989) and information re a
proposed opencast coal mine (1986) which also included a water balance (1989).
Confirms flooding in the mines. Found sand and gravel deposits below Bishop's loch;
indicates leaky aquifer. Did not find a hydraulic connection between Woodend Loch
and Bishops loch. 4no pump tests took place which did not show connection between
lochs but if the durration was short, might not be expected to (though chemical
composition of water samples supports this).
NE20 1980s MossWood. Water near top of sandstone.
NE21 nr Shaft stabilisation, no groundwater mentioned
NE25 nr
NE26 varies drift comprised Made Ground over Glacial Till. Minor seepage(s) only.
NE27
nr
several site investigations, including the stabilization of an old pit shaft. Perched groundwater
only.
NE28 nr
NE29 1966 Water table at or near top of rockhead in July 1966; see sheet 2 for details
NE3 nr
NE30
1980s to present
Kilgarth Landfill (just offsite to the east, bounded by three railways). Discusses a
groundwater resurgance in the study area, at Kingshill Cottages which is a known
minewater discharge. Further details on Sheet 5.
NE35
nr
grouting records. Peat pocket overlying shallow mining in Commonhead. Grouted to circa 46
to 66 ft below ground level and consolidated peat. Groundwater pearched only.
NE37 nr
NE38 nr
NE39 nr
NE40 nr
NE44
1996-2002
Auchenlee Park. Shaft present. Former quarry was backfilled with generally inert
material with very limited/no contamination (hydrocarbon and metal (Cu, Pb, and Zn)
hotspots). Some perched groundwater.
NE45 nr Perched groundwater, in the form of groundwater strike levels (and no rest)
NE50 nr Perched groundwater only.
NE51 nr Mineral positions for several sites in the area
NE52 nr Regional file regarding mining/stability
NE54 nr shallow water table or large area of perched groundwater
NE55 1960 shallow water table or large area of perched groundwater
NE56 nr geologic information (drift only) but no groundwater
NE57 nr sporatic perched groundwater
NE58 nr
NE60
1983
logs for suspected shaft in South Rogerfield, Easterhouse. Generally damp but without
groundwater strikes. Two positions had heavy water flows (BH4 and BH5, within the
rock, see Sheet 6 for details)
NE63 nr
NE64 nr
NE65 nr
NE66 nr
NE67
nr Site investigation included gas monitoring standpipes, but made no mention of groundwater.
NE71 nr
NE72
1997
Site investigation for a housing development. Soune seepages/perched groundwater
in boreholes and trial pits. No monitoring wells noted.
NE75 nr
NE76 nr
NE77
1965
desk study only, but mentions 2no. 1965 boreholes (1 of which encountered groundwater in
peat at 1.4mbgl).
NE80 nr text discussing former mining.
NE81 nr site investigation but groundwater not encountered.
NE82 1995 perched groundwater, some monitoring piesometers in 1995.
NE87
unknown
desk study only, but mentions "borehole information within and adjacent to the site indicate
depths to groundwater around 1.0 to 2.0m" but no indication of source of this information,
borehole locations, date, etc.
NE90 1999 site investigation, some water strikes noted.
NE92 nr geologic information but no groundwater
NE95 nr
NE97
nr
north-east of Blackfaulds farm, a few new "sits" noted (subsidance). No investigation logs or
water information.
NE98 nr
AECOM
Appendix B – Bothlin Burn FEH
statistical estimate
AECOM
Site
NGR
y
Statistical y
Rainfall runoff
Hybrid
Site
NGR
< 2 years
2 to 13 years
� > 13 years
No gauged record
37
200
Site analysis Pooled analysis1
Shorthand description
< T/2 No Yes Pooled analysis
T/2 to T years For confirmation Yes Pooled analysis prevails
T to 2T years Yes Yes2
Site & Pooled analysis
> 2T years Yes For confirmation2
Site analysis prevails
�
Site analysis Pooled analysis1
Shorthand description
< 14 years No Yes Pooled analysis
� 14 to T years For confirmation Yes Pooled analysis prevails
T to 2T years Yes Yes2
Site & Pooled analysis
> 2T years Yes For confirmation2
Site analysis prevails
Method for Deriving the Growth Curve
Length of gauged record
Data transfer from donor/analogue catchment
From POT data
As median of annual maxima
From catchment descriptors, adjusted by data transfer
years
269050 669750
Method for Estimating QMED
Length of record
Preferred Method.
Choice of Method Reasons
CHOICE OF METHOD WITHIN THE STATISTICAL APPROACH
Bothlin Burn @ B18
CHOICE OF METHOD
at analogue sites
Other data
None
at subject site
at donor sites
T >= 27 years
Length of Record
1 Size of pooling group chosen to provide 5T station-years of record
Target return period T
T <= 27 years
Length of Record
years
2 Subject site excluded from pooled analysis
Bothlin Burn @ B18
269050 669750
Type of Problem/ Objective of Study
T-year flow estimates for input to hydraulic model of canal
Type of Catchment
Type and Availability of Flood Data
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 1 of 9
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Forth and Clyde Canal Model Development\Data\Calculations\Feeder catchments
AREA 23.22
SAAR 1009
FPEXT 0.1365
BFIHOST 0.313
SPRHOST 39.73
FARL 0.871
URBEXT2000 0.0748 0.0767
PROPWET 0.58
DPLBAR 7.05
DPSBAR 36
ALTBAR 87
ASPBAR 199
ASPVAR 0.04
LDP 11.52
FPEXT 0.1427
FPDBAR 1.496
FPBLOC 1.043
RMED-1H 8.5
RMED-1D 31.7
RMED-2D 42.4
SAAR4170 988
SMDBAR
RESHOST -0.158 vol 3 equ 13.7
Adjusted BFI (map) 0.000
Adjusted SPR vol 3 Equ 13.25
Year 2011
URBEXTupdated 0.0767
Urban Extent Calculation
urbanisedSpecial Characteristics
CATCHMENT
DESCRIPTORCD-ROM ADJUSTED
ADJUSTMENT
METHODREASONS
CATCHMENT DERIVATION
Bothlin Burn @ B18
269050 669750
Auchenguich
Site Name
NGR
Location
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011
Page 2 of 9
Station name
NGR
AREA
SAAR
BFIHOST
SPR
FARL
URBEXT
QMED site rural 8.66 m3/s
PRUAF
UAF2000 1.079
QMED site urban 9.35 m3/s
QMED site urban (68%
Upper Confidence
Limit) 14.49 m3/s
Catchment Descriptors
39.73
1.03
ESTIMATING QMED FROM CATCHMENT DESCRIPTORS
0.871
0.0767
Urban Adjustment
23.22
1009
0.313
Bothlin Burn @ B18
269050 669750
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011
Page 2 of 9
Ungauged site Bothlin Burn @ B18
NGR 269050 669750
Station Name
Bothlin Burn @ Auchengeich
Station no 84023
AREA 34.85
SAAR 1029.00
BFIHOST 0.31
SPRHOST 39.72
FARL 0.91
URBEXT2000 0.094
QMEDdonor rural, CD 14.87
QMED donor, obs 8.67
Source of Observed Data SEPA - Water Years
Adjustment 0.58
Subject site catchment centroid 269523 667850
Donr site catchment centroid 268858 668532
Distance 0.95
geographical weighting a 0.79
QMED adj 5.65
QMED site urban 6.09
ESTIMATING QMED AT UNGAUGED SITE BY DATA TRANSFER
Estimate of QMED of Analogues from Catchment Descriptors
Note that if URBEXT is greater than 0.025, donor site should be similarly urbanised in terms
of extent, type and layout of urbanisation and have similar urban drainage practices
Urban Adjustment
Adjustment by Data Transfer
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 4 of 9
B18 default
Station
41028 (Chess Stream @ Chess Bridge)
72014 (Conder @ Galgate)
52015 (Land Yeo @ Wraxall Bridge)
73015 (Keer @ High Keer Weir)
54060 (Potford Brook @ Sandyford Bridge)
203046 (Rathmore Burn @ Rathmore Bridge)
203026 (Glenavy @ Glenavy)
39017 (Ray @ Grendon Underwood)
54052 (Bailey Brook @ Ternhill)
41020 (Bevern Stream @ Clappers Bridge)
33045 (Wittle @ Quidenham)
20002 (West Peffer Burn @ Luffness)
43019 (Shreen Water @ Colesbrook)
206004 (Bessbrook @ Carnbane)
203049 (Clady @ Clady Bridge)
Total
Weighted means
B18 amended 2
Station
72014 (Conder @ Galgate)
203046 (Rathmore Burn @ Rathmore Bridge)
41020 (Bevern Stream @ Clappers Bridge)
33045 (Wittle @ Quidenham)
20002 (West Peffer Burn @ Luffness)
206004 (Bessbrook @ Carnbane)
203049 (Clady @ Clady Bridge)
36009 (Brett @ Cockfield)
33054 (Babingley @ Castle Rising)
48007 (Kennal @ Ponsanooth)
76811 (Dacre Beck @ Dacre Bridge)
29009 (Ancholme @ Toft Newton)
72007 (Brock @ U/s a6)
49003 (de Lank @ de Lank)
48004 (Warleggan @ Trengoffe)
Total
Weighted means
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 5 of 9
Site Ungauged site
NGR y Gauged site
Addition/
Deletion/ Move/
Investigate
Location 1 Scale 0.219 Shape -0.147
Goodness of Fit
Pearson Type iii
WINFAP-FEH growth curve fittings
Statistical Distribution Selected
GL
Strongly heterogeneous
Strongly heterogeneous
Acceptable Fit Distribution
Attached print outs
Growth Curve Fittings
Y
Heterogeneity Measure
H1
H2
Final Pooling Group Details
Generalised Logistic
Generalised Extreme Value
Name of Pooling Group
WINFAP-FEH growth curve
Generalised Pareto
DERIVING A POOLED GROWTH CURVE
WINFAP-FEH summary information if gauged site
Initial Pooling Group Details
Adjustment/ Changes made to Default Pooling Group.
Attached Printouts
WINFAP-FEH station details
Bothlin Burn @ B18
Bothlin Burn @ B18
269050 669750
200 years
B18 amended 1Name
ReasonStation number
See pooling group details worksheet
Also note sites that were investigated but retained in the group (i.e. for discordancy)
Return period of interest
Other information
Name
Site of interest
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 6 of 9
Site Ungauged site
NGR � Gauged site
� No Yes by Year URBEXT adjusted
User supplied value of URBEXT
to
�
Y
9.35 m3/s
6.09 m3/s
Attached print outs �
N
Q2 6.09 m3/s
Q5 8.22 m3/s
Q10 9.69 m3/s
Q30 12.2 m3/s
Q50 13.5 m3/s
Q100 15.3 m3/s
Q200 17.4 m3/s
Q500 20.5 m3/s
User defined
CONSTRUCTING THE FLOOD FREQUENCY CURVE
Bothlin Burn @ B18
269050 669750
URBEXT Updated/Backdated
URBEXT adjusted from
Urban adjustment applied Y/N
QMEDcd
QMEDsite adj
Flood Frequency Curve
WINFAP-FEH flood frequency curve
Method to Estimate QMED
AM
POT
Catchment descriptors
Catchment descriptors and data transfer
Comparison with previous analysis Y/N
Details of comparisons
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 8 of 9
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 8 of 9
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 9 of 9
F:\PROJECTS\Water Resources - Gartloch and Gartcosh FRM & SWMP\Data\Calculations\Catchments\Bothlin subcatchments\
Bothlin Burn @ B18 WINFAP-FEHPROFORMAv3:
03/10/2011 Page 9 of 9
AECOM
Appendix C – Catchment
characteristics of subcatchments
AECOM
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point B1 Inflow point B2 Inflow point Inter B1-B2
Grid ref NS 65850 67250 Grid ref NS 67200 67350 Grid ref
Inflow type point Inflow type point Inflow type lateral
B1 B2 B2 B1
Grid Ref: NS 65850 67250 Grid Ref: NS 67200 67350 Grid Ref: NS 67200 67350 NS 65850 67250
AREA 0.52 AREA 2.18 AREA 2.18 0.52 1.66
ALTBAR 91 ALTBAR 87 ALTBAR 87 91
ASPBAR 60 ASPBAR 60 ASPBAR 60 60
ASPVAR 0.32 ASPVAR 0.18 ASPVAR 0.18 0.32
BFIHOST 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312 0.312
DPLBAR 0.61 DPLBAR 1.6 DPLBAR 1.6 0.61 1.32
DPSBAR 36.5 DPSBAR 28.9 DPSBAR 28.9 36.5 26.52
FARL 1 FARL 1 FARL 1 1
FPEXT 0.0769 FPEXT 0.1149 FPEXT 0.1149 0.0769
FPDBAR 0.692 FPDBAR 0.824 FPDBAR 0.824 0.692
FPBLOC 0.556 FPBLOC 0.689 FPBLOC 0.689 0.556
LDP 1.19 LDP 3.02 LDP 3.02 1.19
PROPWET 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58
RMED-1H 8.8 RMED-1H 8.7 RMED-1H 8.7 8.8
RMED-1D 33.6 RMED-1D 33 RMED-1D 33 33.6
RMED-2D 43.9 RMED-2D 43.4 RMED-2D 43.4 43.9
SAAR 990 SAAR 994 SAAR 994 990 995.25
SAAR4170 963 SAAR4170 968 SAAR4170 968 963
SPRHOST 39.7 SPRHOST 39.7 SPRHOST 39.7 39.7 39.70
URBCONC1990 0.784 URBCONC1990 0.655 URBCONC1990 0.655 0.784
URBEXT1990 0.137 URBEXT1990 0.0879 URBEXT1990 0.0879 0.137 0.07
URBLOC1990 1.421 URBLOC1990 1.305 URBLOC1990 1.305 1.421
URBCONC2000 0.905 URBCONC2000 0.847 URBCONC2000 0.847 0.905
URBEXT2000 0.2077 URBEXT2000 0.1509 URBEXT2000 0.1509 0.2077 0.13
URBLOC2000 1.401 URBLOC2000 1.362 URBLOC2000 1.362 1.401
C -0.015 C -0.0148 C -0.0148 -0.015 -0.015
D1 0.40863 D1 0.40509 D1 0.40509 0.40863 0.404
D2 0.35999 D2 0.36683 D2 0.36683 0.35999 0.369
D3 0.36736 D3 0.36802 D3 0.36802 0.36736 0.368
E 0.24224 E 0.24142 E 0.24142 0.24224 0.241
F 2.31266 F 2.3026 F 2.3026 2.31266 2.299
C(1km) -0.015 C(1km) -0.015 C(1km) -0.015 -0.015 -0.015
D1(1km) 0.403 D1(1km) 0.403 D1(1km) 0.403 0.403 0.403
D2(1km) 0.365 D2(1km) 0.371 D2(1km) 0.371 0.365 0.373
D3(1km) 0.365 D3(1km) 0.372 D3(1km) 0.372 0.365 0.374
E(1km) 0.242 E(1km) 0.242 E(1km) 0.242 0.242 0.242
F(1km) 2.309 F(1km) 2.289 F(1km) 2.289 2.309 2.283
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point B3 Inflow point Inter B2-B3 Inflow point B6
Grid ref NS 67200 67350 Grid ref Grid ref NS 68750 66550
Inflow type point Inflow type lateral Inflow type point
B3 B3 B2 B6 B5
Grid Ref: NS 67200 67350 Grid Ref: NS 67200 67350 NS 65850 67250 Grid Ref: NS 68750 66550 NS 70050 66150
AREA 4.41 AREA 4.41 2.18 2.23 AREA 2.71 1.97 0.74
ALTBAR 86 ALTBAR 86 87 ALTBAR 85 85
ASPBAR 63 ASPBAR 63 60 ASPBAR 301 299
ASPVAR 0.18 ASPVAR 0.18 0.18 ASPVAR 0.21 0.26
BFIHOST 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312 0.312 BFIHOST 0.32 0.323
DPLBAR 2.18 DPLBAR 2.18 1.6 1.55 DPLBAR 2.1 1.08 0.85
DPSBAR 33.5 DPSBAR 33.5 28.9 38.00 DPSBAR 29.7 24.5 43.54
FARL 0.995 FARL 0.995 1 FARL 0.639 0.541
FPEXT 0.1343 FPEXT 0.1343 0.1149 FPEXT 0.2138 0.2839
FPDBAR 0.96 FPDBAR 0.96 0.824 FPDBAR 5.107 6.879
FPBLOC 0.74 FPBLOC 0.74 0.689 FPBLOC 1.22 1.036
LDP 4.45 LDP 4.45 3.02 LDP 3.82 2.32
PROPWET 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58
RMED-1H 8.6 RMED-1H 8.6 8.7 RMED-1H 8.5 8.5
RMED-1D 32.4 RMED-1D 32.4 33 RMED-1D 31.2 31.2
RMED-2D 42.8 RMED-2D 42.8 43.4 RMED-2D 41.6 41.5
SAAR 982 SAAR 982 994 970.27 SAAR 955 956 952.34
SAAR4170 964 SAAR4170 964 968 SAAR4170 949 950
SPRHOST 39.7 SPRHOST 39.7 39.7 39.70 SPRHOST 39.99 40.08 39.75
URBCONC1990 0.688 URBCONC1990 0.688 0.655 URBCONC1990 0.865 0.841
URBEXT1990 0.0657 URBEXT1990 0.0657 0.0879 0.044 URBEXT1990 0.0786 0.0418 0.18
URBLOC1990 1.266 URBLOC1990 1.266 1.305 URBLOC1990 0.82 1.852
URBCONC2000 0.872 URBCONC2000 0.872 0.847 URBCONC2000 0.968 1
URBEXT2000 0.098 URBEXT2000 0.098 0.1509 0.046 URBEXT2000 0.085 0.0481 0.18
URBLOC2000 1.39 URBLOC2000 1.39 1.362 URBLOC2000 0.833 1.838
C -0.01489 C -0.01489 -0.0148 -0.015 C -0.01466 -0.01486 -0.014
D1 0.40145 D1 0.40145 0.40509 0.398 D1 0.39465 0.39448 0.395
D2 0.36999 D2 0.36999 0.36683 0.373 D2 0.3753 0.37564 0.374
D3 0.37354 D3 0.37354 0.36802 0.379 D3 0.38854 0.38756 0.391
E 0.24142 E 0.24142 0.24142 0.241 E 0.24102 0.24103 0.241
F 2.29622 F 2.29622 2.3026 2.290 F 2.27556 2.27455 2.278
C(1km) -0.015 C(1km) -0.015 -0.015 -0.015 C(1km) -0.014 -0.015 -0.011
D1(1km) 0.393 D1(1km) 0.393 0.403 0.383 D1(1km) 0.396 0.392 0.407
D2(1km) 0.377 D2(1km) 0.377 0.371 0.383 D2(1km) 0.374 0.374 0.374
D3(1km) 0.383 D3(1km) 0.383 0.372 0.394 D3(1km) 0.392 0.386 0.408
E(1km) 0.241 E(1km) 0.241 0.242 0.240 E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241
F(1km) 2.288 F(1km) 2.288 2.289 2.287 F(1km) 2.277 2.273 2.288
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point B5 Inflow point B4
Grid ref NS 68275 66795 Grid ref NS 68276 66797
Inflow type point Inflow type point
B5 B4 B4
Grid Ref: NS 70050 66150 NS 70400 66400 Grid Ref: NS 70400 66400
AREA 1.97 1.17 0.8 AREA 1.17
ALTBAR 85 84 ALTBAR 84
ASPBAR 299 289 ASPBAR 289
ASPVAR 0.26 0.21 ASPVAR 0.21
BFIHOST 0.323 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312
DPLBAR 1.08 0.9 0.88 DPLBAR 0.9
DPSBAR 24.5 28.2 19.09 DPSBAR 28.2
FARL 0.541 0.572 FARL 0.572
FPEXT 0.2839 0.402 FPEXT 0.402
FPDBAR 6.879 11.15 FPDBAR 11.15
FPBLOC 1.036 0.865 FPBLOC 0.865
LDP 2.32 1.89 LDP 1.89
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58
RMED-1H 8.5 8.5 RMED-1H 8.5
RMED-1D 31.2 31.3 RMED-1D 31.3
RMED-2D 41.5 41.6 RMED-2D 41.6
SAAR 956 964 944.30 SAAR 964
SAAR4170 950 959 SAAR4170 959
SPRHOST 40.08 39.7 40.64 SPRHOST 39.7
URBCONC1990 0.841 0.841 URBCONC1990 0.841
URBEXT1990 0.0418 0.0709 0.00 URBEXT1990 0.0709
URBLOC1990 1.852 1.721 URBLOC1990 1.721
URBCONC2000 1 1 URBCONC2000 1
URBEXT2000 0.0481 0.0816 0.00 URBEXT2000 0.0816
URBLOC2000 1.838 1.704 URBLOC2000 1.704
C -0.01486 -0.01478 -0.015 C -0.01478
D1 0.39448 0.39558 0.393 D1 0.39558
D2 0.37564 0.37567 0.376 D2 0.37567
D3 0.38756 0.38847 0.386 D3 0.38847
E 0.24103 0.24106 0.241 E 0.24106
F 2.27455 2.2749 2.274 F 2.2749
C(1km) -0.015 -0.015 -0.015 C(1km) -0.015
D1(1km) 0.392 0.392 0.392 D1(1km) 0.392
D2(1km) 0.374 0.374 0.374 D2(1km) 0.374
D3(1km) 0.386 0.386 0.386 D3(1km) 0.386
E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241 E(1km) 0.241
F(1km) 2.273 2.273 2.273 F(1km) 2.273
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point B19
Grid ref NS 68840 66880
Inflow type point
B16 B6 B3
Grid Ref: NS 69100 67000 NS 68750 66550 NS 68350 66750
AREA 7.83 2.71 5.12 4.41 0.71 km2
ALTBAR 85 85 86 mAOD
ASPBAR 34 301 63
ASPVAR 0.11 0.21 0.18
BFIHOST 0.314 0.32 0.312
DPLBAR 2.69 2.1 2.45 2.18 0.83 km
DPSBAR 33.5 29.7 35.51 33.5 48.00 m/km
FARL 0.854 0.639 0.995
FPEXT 0.1587 0.2138 0.1343
FPDBAR 2.437 5.107 0.96
FPBLOC 0.995 1.22 0.74
LDP 5.32 3.82 4.45
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
RMED-1H 8.6 8.5 8.6 mm
RMED-1D 31.9 31.2 32.4 mm
RMED-2D 42.4 41.6 42.8 mm
SAAR 972 955 981.00 982 974.77 mm
SAAR4170 958 949 964 mm
SPRHOST 39.79 39.99 39.68 39.7 39.59 %
URBCONC1990 0.746 0.865 0.688
URBEXT1990 0.0709 0.0786 0.07 0.0657 0.07
URBLOC1990 1.054 0.82 1.266
URBCONC2000 0.914 0.968 0.872
URBEXT2000 0.0877 0.085 0.09 0.098 0.03
URBLOC2000 1.21 0.833 1.39
C -0.01475 -0.01466 -0.015 -0.01489 -0.014
D1 0.39844 0.39465 0.400 0.40145 0.394
D2 0.37246 0.3753 0.371 0.36999 0.377
D3 0.38029 0.38854 0.376 0.37354 0.391
E 0.24124 0.24102 0.241 0.24142 0.241
F 2.28787 2.27556 2.294 2.29622 2.283
C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.015 -0.008
D1(1km) 0.394 0.396 0.393 0.393 0.393
D2(1km) 0.378 0.374 0.380 0.377 0.399
D3(1km) 0.393 0.392 0.394 0.383 0.459
E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241
F(1km) 2.283 2.277 2.286 2.288 2.275
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Inter B16-B7 Inflow point B13
Grid ref Grid ref NS 67300 68200
Inflow type lateral Inflow type point
B7 B16 B15 B13
Grid Ref: NS 70150 67650 NS 69100 67000 NS 69650 67550 Grid Ref: NS 67300 68200
AREA 13.45 7.83 5.62 4.59 1.03 AREA 0.6
ALTBAR 85 85 86 ALTBAR 88
ASPBAR 121 34 162 ASPBAR 133
ASPVAR 0.07 0.11 0.28 ASPVAR 0.35
BFIHOST 0.313 0.314 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312
DPLBAR 3.51 2.69 2.58 2.37 1.02 DPLBAR 1.07
DPSBAR 31.6 33.5 28.95 29.4 26.96 DPSBAR 15.9
FARL 0.799 0.854 0.935 FARL 1
FPEXT 0.1597 0.1587 0.1429 FPEXT 0.3182
FPDBAR 1.944 2.437 0.955 FPDBAR 1.492
FPBLOC 0.989 0.995 1.053 FPBLOC 0.96
LDP 6.74 5.32 4.7 LDP 1.73
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58
RMED-1H 8.6 8.6 8.5 RMED-1H 8.7
RMED-1D 31.9 31.9 31.8 RMED-1D 33
RMED-2D 42.5 42.4 42.9 RMED-2D 44.1
SAAR 991 972 1017.47 1025 983.92 SAAR 1026
SAAR4170 971 958 992 SAAR4170 987
SPRHOST 39.75 39.79 39.69 39.7 39.67 SPRHOST 39.7
URBCONC1990 0.688 0.746 0.622 URBCONC1990 0.605
URBEXT1990 0.0723 0.0709 0.07 0.0799 0.05 URBEXT1990 0.2004
URBLOC1990 1.078 1.054 1.19 URBLOC1990 0.994
URBCONC2000 0.864 0.914 0.783 URBCONC2000 0.831
URBEXT2000 0.0896 0.0877 0.09 0.106 0.03 URBEXT2000 0.4017
URBLOC2000 1.206 1.21 1.357 URBLOC2000 1.061
C -0.01448 -0.01475 -0.014 -0.01412 -0.014 C -0.01445
D1 0.39785 0.39844 0.397 0.39709 0.397 D1 0.40609
D2 0.37578 0.37246 0.380 0.38171 0.375 D2 0.37545
D3 0.3805 0.38029 0.381 0.37843 0.391 D3 0.36704
E 0.2408 0.24124 0.240 0.24001 0.241 E 0.24068
F 2.28691 2.28787 2.286 2.28695 2.279 F 2.29871
C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C(1km) -0.014
D1(1km) 0.396 0.394 0.399 0.396 0.411 D1(1km) 0.402
D2(1km) 0.374 0.378 0.368 0.374 0.344 D2(1km) 0.368
D3(1km) 0.392 0.393 0.391 0.392 0.384 D3(1km) 0.373
E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 E(1km) 0.24
F(1km) 2.283 2.283 2.283 2.283 2.283 F(1km) 2.29
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Inter B13-B15 Inflow point B14
Grid ref Grid ref NS 69500 68300
Inflow type lateral Inflow type point
B15 B13 B14ds B14
Grid Ref: NS 69650 67550 NS 67300 68200 NS 68950 67800 Grid Ref: NS 69500 68300
AREA 4.59 0.6 3.99 1.03 2.96 AREA 0.67
ALTBAR 86 88 86 ALTBAR 87
ASPBAR 162 133 181 ASPBAR 181
ASPVAR 0.28 0.35 0.33 ASPVAR 0.3
BFIHOST 0.312 0.312 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312
DPLBAR 2.37 1.07 2.13 1.06 1.81 DPLBAR 0.56
DPSBAR 29.4 15.9 31.43 31.6 31.37 DPSBAR 27.7
FARL 0.935 1 0.743 FARL 0.631
FPEXT 0.1429 0.3182 0.1138 FPEXT 0.1165
FPDBAR 0.955 1.492 0.872 FPDBAR 0.827
FPBLOC 1.053 0.96 0.908 FPBLOC 0.85
LDP 4.7 1.73 2.06 LDP 1.3
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58
RMED-1H 8.5 8.7 8.4 RMED-1H 8.4
RMED-1D 31.8 33 31.2 RMED-1D 31.2
RMED-2D 42.9 44.1 42.4 RMED-2D 42.4
SAAR 1025 1026 1024.85 1038 1020.27 SAAR 1043
SAAR4170 992 987 1004 SAAR4170 1009
SPRHOST 39.7 39.7 39.70 39.7 39.70 SPRHOST 39.7
URBCONC1990 0.622 0.605 0.621 URBCONC1990 0.609
URBEXT1990 0.0799 0.2004 0.06 0.0751 0.06 URBEXT1990 0.0865
URBLOC1990 1.19 0.994 1.084 URBLOC1990 1.104
URBCONC2000 0.783 0.831 0.774 URBCONC2000 0.813
URBEXT2000 0.106 0.4017 0.06 0.1005 0.05 URBEXT2000 0.1259
URBLOC2000 1.357 1.061 1.234 URBLOC2000 1.368
C -0.01412 -0.01445 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C -0.014
D1 0.39709 0.40609 0.396 0.39178 0.397 D1 0.39202
D2 0.38171 0.37545 0.383 0.38648 0.381 D2 0.38684
D3 0.37843 0.36704 0.380 0.38824 0.377 D3 0.38821
E 0.24001 0.24068 0.240 0.23972 0.240 E 0.2399
F 2.28695 2.29871 2.285 2.27941 2.287 F 2.27865
C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C(1km) -0.014
D1(1km) 0.396 0.402 0.395 0.39 0.397 D1(1km) 0.39
D2(1km) 0.374 0.368 0.375 0.387 0.371 D2(1km) 0.387
D3(1km) 0.392 0.373 0.395 0.389 0.397 D3(1km) 0.389
E(1km) 0.241 0.24 0.241 0.239 0.242 E(1km) 0.239
F(1km) 2.283 2.29 2.282 2.281 2.282 F(1km) 2.281
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Inter B14-B14ds Inflow point B8 Inflow point Inter B8-B9
Grid ref Grid ref NS 69500 68300 Grid ref
Inflow type lateral Inflow type point Inflow type lateral
B14ds B14 B8 B9 B8
Grid Ref: NS 68950 67800 NS 69500 68300 Grid Ref: NS 72800 68700 Grid Ref: NS 71000 67500 NS 72800 68700 Grid Ref:
AREA 1.03 0.67 0.36 AREA 0.97 AREA 4.63 0.97 3.66 AREA
ALTBAR 86 87 ALTBAR 103 ALTBAR 93 103 ALTBAR
ASPBAR 181 181 ASPBAR 254 ASPBAR 239 254 ASPBAR
ASPVAR 0.33 0.3 ASPVAR 0.54 ASPVAR 0.25 0.54 ASPVAR
BFIHOST 0.312 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312 BFIHOST 0.312 0.312 BFIHOST
DPLBAR 1.06 0.56 0.57 DPLBAR 0.74 DPLBAR 2.12 0.74 2.04 DPLBAR
DPSBAR 31.6 27.7 38.86 DPSBAR 34.4 DPSBAR 34.3 34.4 34.27 DPSBAR
FARL 0.743 0.631 FARL 0.946 FARL 0.97 0.946 FARL
FPEXT 0.1138 0.1165 FPEXT 0.1179 FPEXT 0.1479 0.1179 FPEXT
FPDBAR 0.872 0.827 FPDBAR 0.849 FPDBAR 0.989 0.849 FPDBAR
FPBLOC 0.908 0.85 FPBLOC 0.515 FPBLOC 0.84 0.515 FPBLOC
LDP 2.06 1.3 LDP 1.65 LDP 4.23 1.65 LDP
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET
RMED-1H 8.4 8.4 RMED-1H 8.6 RMED-1H 8.5 8.6 RMED-1H
RMED-1D 31.2 31.2 RMED-1D 31.9 RMED-1D 31.7 31.9 RMED-1D
RMED-2D 42.4 42.4 RMED-2D 42.2 RMED-2D 42 42.2 RMED-2D
SAAR 1038 1043 1028.69 SAAR 1024 SAAR 1013 1024 1010.08 SAAR
SAAR4170 1004 1009 SAAR4170 1017 SAAR4170 1004 1017 SAAR4170
SPRHOST 39.7 39.7 39.70 SPRHOST 39.7 SPRHOST 39.7 39.7 39.70 SPRHOST
URBCONC1990 0.621 0.609 URBCONC1990 0.5 URBCONC1990 0.583 0.5 URBCONC1990
URBEXT1990 0.0751 0.0865 0.05 URBEXT1990 0.0064 URBEXT1990 0.0532 0.0064 0.07 URBEXT1990
URBLOC1990 1.084 1.104 URBLOC1990 0.246 URBLOC1990 0.956 0.246 URBLOC1990
URBCONC2000 0.774 0.813 URBCONC2000 -999999 URBCONC2000 0.731 -999999 URBCONC2000
URBEXT2000 0.1005 0.1259 0.05 URBEXT2000 0.0026 URBEXT2000 0.0543 0.0026 0.07 URBEXT2000
URBLOC2000 1.234 1.368 URBLOC2000 -999999 URBLOC2000 1.145 -999999 URBLOC2000
C -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C -0.014 C -0.01403 -0.014 -0.014 C
D1 0.39178 0.39202 0.391 D1 0.40068 D1 0.39864 0.40068 0.398 D1
D2 0.38648 0.38684 0.386 D2 0.38119 D2 0.37956 0.38119 0.379 D2
D3 0.38824 0.38821 0.388 D3 0.38388 D3 0.38589 0.38388 0.386 D3
E 0.23972 0.2399 0.239 E 0.24087 E 0.24097 0.24087 0.241 E
F 2.27941 2.27865 2.281 F 2.28013 F 2.27753 2.28013 2.277 F
C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C(1km) -0.014 C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C(1km)
D1(1km) 0.39 0.39 0.390 D1(1km) 0.402 D1(1km) 0.399 0.402 0.398 D1(1km)
D2(1km) 0.387 0.387 0.387 D2(1km) 0.38 D2(1km) 0.379 0.38 0.379 D2(1km)
D3(1km) 0.389 0.389 0.389 D3(1km) 0.384 D3(1km) 0.387 0.384 0.388 D3(1km)
E(1km) 0.239 0.239 0.239 E(1km) 0.241 E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241 E(1km)
F(1km) 2.281 2.281 2.281 F(1km) 2.276 F(1km) 2.277 2.276 2.277 F(1km)
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Inter B9-B10 Inflow point B11
Grid ref Grid ref NS 70950 68950
Inflow type lateral Inflow type point
B10 B9 B11ds B11
NS 70250 67600 NS 71000 67500 Grid Ref: NS 70950 69000 NS 70950 68950
5.44 4.63 0.81 AREA 20.3 19.84 0.46
92 93 ALTBAR 87 87
240 239 ASPBAR 202 196
0.24 0.25 ASPVAR 0.06 0.05
0.312 0.312 BFIHOST 0.313 0.313
2.62 2.12 0.89 DPLBAR 4.83 4.88 0.65
32.8 34.3 24.23 DPSBAR 33.4 32.7 63.59
0.968 0.97 FARL 0.854 0.851
0.1493 0.1479 FPEXT 0.1511 0.1516
1.037 0.989 FPDBAR 1.602 1.621
0.871 0.84 FPBLOC 1.006 1.004
5.05 4.23 LDP 8.6 8.55
0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58
8.5 8.5 RMED-1H 8.5 8.5
31.6 31.7 RMED-1D 31.8 31.8
42 42 RMED-2D 42.4 42.4
1011 1013 999.57 SAAR 1000 999 1043.13
1001 1004 SAAR4170 982 981
39.7 39.7 39.70 SPRHOST 39.73 39.73 39.73
0.58 0.583 URBCONC1990 0.649 0.652
0.0471 0.0532 0.01 URBEXT1990 0.0654 0.0658 0.05
1.068 0.956 URBLOC1990 1.058 1.053
0.747 0.731 URBCONC2000 0.821 0.819
0.0487 0.0543 0.017 URBEXT2000 0.0805 0.0811 0.05
1.207 1.145 URBLOC2000 1.121 1.116
-0.01407 -0.01403 -0.014 C -0.01434 -0.01434 -0.014
0.39836 0.39864 0.397 D1 0.39793 0.39793 0.398
0.37909 0.37956 0.376 D2 0.37703 0.37688 0.383
0.38633 0.38589 0.389 D3 0.3826 0.3825 0.387
0.24098 0.24097 0.241 E 0.24086 0.24085 0.241
2.27753 2.27753 2.278 F 2.28397 2.28401 2.282
-0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014
0.396 0.399 0.379 D1(1km) 0.398 0.398 0.398
0.374 0.379 0.345 D2(1km) 0.38 0.38 0.380
0.392 0.387 0.421 D3(1km) 0.387 0.387 0.387
0.241 0.241 0.241 E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241
2.283 2.277 2.317 F(1km) 2.283 2.283 2.283
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Inter B17-B11 Inflow point B12
Grid ref Grid ref NS 69800 69450
Inflow type lateral Inflow type Point
B11 B17 B12
Grid Ref: NS 70950 68950 NS 70200 67650 Grid Ref: NS 69800 69450
AREA 19.84 18.91 0.93 AREA 0.93
ALTBAR 87 87 ALTBAR 90
ASPBAR 196 196 ASPBAR 57
ASPVAR 0.05 0.06 ASPVAR 0.2
BFIHOST 0.313 0.313 BFIHOST 0.312
DPLBAR 4.88 3.3 0.96 DPLBAR 1.05
DPSBAR 32.7 32 46.93 DPSBAR 41
FARL 0.851 0.844 FARL 1
FPEXT 0.1516 0.1566 FPEXT 0.0568
FPDBAR 1.621 1.682 FPDBAR 0.324
FPBLOC 1.004 0.968 FPBLOC 0.81
LDP 8.55 6.79 LDP 1.81
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58
RMED-1H 8.5 8.5 RMED-1H 8.4
RMED-1D 31.8 31.8 RMED-1D 31.2
RMED-2D 42.4 42.4 RMED-2D 42.7
SAAR 999 997 1039.67 SAAR 1062
SAAR4170 981 980 SAAR4170 1018
SPRHOST 39.73 39.74 39.53 SPRHOST 39.7
URBCONC1990 0.652 0.662 URBCONC1990 0.739
URBEXT1990 0.0658 0.065 0.08 URBEXT1990 0.0541
URBLOC1990 1.053 1.098 URBLOC1990 1.42
URBCONC2000 0.819 0.841 URBCONC2000 0.571
URBEXT2000 0.0811 0.0778 0.148 URBEXT2000 0.0324
URBLOC2000 1.116 1.238 URBLOC2000 1.444
C -0.01434 -0.01436 -0.014 C -0.014
D1 0.39793 0.398 0.397 D1 0.39302
D2 0.37688 0.37673 0.380 D2 0.39302
D3 0.3825 0.38219 0.389 D3 0.38032
E 0.24085 0.24085 0.241 E 0.23941
F 2.28401 2.2842 2.280 F 2.27833
C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 C(1km) -0.014
D1(1km) 0.398 0.396 0.439 D1(1km) 0.39
D2(1km) 0.38 0.374 0.502 D2(1km) 0.392
D3(1km) 0.387 0.392 0.285 D3(1km) 0.39
E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241 E(1km) 0.24
F(1km) 2.283 2.283 2.283 F(1km) 2.274
Bothlin Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Inter B11-B18
Grid ref
Inflow type lateral
B18 B11ds B12
Grid Ref: NS 69050 69750 NS 70950 69000 NS 69800 69450
AREA 23.22 20.3 2.92 0.93 1.99
ALTBAR 87 87 90
ASPBAR 199 202 57
ASPVAR 0.04 0.06 0.2
BFIHOST 0.313 0.313 0.312
DPLBAR 7.05 4.83 1.80 1.05 1.46
DPSBAR 36 33.4 54.08 41 60.19
FARL 0.871 0.854 1
FPEXT 0.1427 0.1511 0.0568
FPDBAR 1.496 1.602 0.324
FPBLOC 1.043 1.006 0.81
LDP 11.52 8.6 1.81
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
RMED-1H 8.5 8.5 8.4
RMED-1D 31.7 31.8 31.2
RMED-2D 42.4 42.4 42.7
SAAR 1009 1000 1071.57 1062 1076.04
SAAR4170 988 982 1018
SPRHOST 39.73 39.73 39.73 39.7 39.74
URBCONC1990 0.652 0.649 0.739
URBEXT1990 0.0611 0.0654 0.03 0.0541 0.02
URBLOC1990 1.088 1.058 1.42
URBCONC2000 0.814 0.821 0.571
URBEXT2000 0.0748 0.0805 0.035 0.0324 0.04
URBLOC2000 1.131 1.121 1.444
C -0.0143 -0.01434 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014
D1 0.39736 0.39793 0.393 0.39302 0.394
D2 0.37923 0.37703 0.395 0.39302 0.395
D3 0.38266 0.3826 0.383 0.38032 0.384
E 0.24078 0.24086 0.240 0.23941 0.241
F 2.28312 2.28397 2.277 2.27833 2.277
C(1km) -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014
D1(1km) 0.4 0.398 0.414 0.39 0.425
D2(1km) 0.393 0.38 0.483 0.392 0.526
D3(1km) 0.37 0.387 0.252 0.39 0.187
E(1km) 0.24 0.241 0.233 0.24 0.230
F(1km) 2.282 2.283 2.275 2.274 2.276
Molendinar Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Mol_1 Inflow point Inter Mol_1-Mol_2 Inflow point Inter Mol_2-Mol_3
Grid ref Grid ref Grid ref
Inflow type point Inflow type Point Inflow type Lateral
Mol_1 Mol_2 Mol_1 Mol_3 Mol_2
Grid Ref: NS 67200 67350 Grid Ref: NS 65300 67700 NS 67200 67350 Grid Ref: NS 64500 67450 NS 65300 67700
AREA 0.58 AREA 0.72 0.58 0.14 AREA 1.3 0.72 0.58
ALTBAR 88 ALTBAR 88 88 ALTBAR 89 88
ASPBAR 310 ASPBAR 309 310 ASPBAR 234 309
ASPVAR 0.34 ASPVAR 0.28 0.34 ASPVAR 0.12 0.28
BFIHOST 0.31 BFIHOST 0.31 0.312 BFIHOST 0.31 0.312
DPLBAR 0.66 DPLBAR 0.83 0.66 0.34 DPLBAR 1.26 0.83 0.74
DPSBAR 13.40 DPSBAR 14.20 13.4 17.51 DPSBAR 20.50 14.2 28.32
FARL 1 FARL 1 1 FARL 1 1
FPEXT 0.2294 FPEXT 0.2457 0.2294 FPEXT 0.2096 0.2457
FPDBAR 1.113 FPDBAR 1.221 1.113 FPDBAR 1.146 1.221
FPBLOC 0.744 FPBLOC 0.784 0.744 FPBLOC 0.935 0.784
LDP 1.54 LDP 1.85 1.54 LDP 2.76 1.85
PROPWET 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58
RMED-1H 8.8 RMED-1H 8.9 8.8 RMED-1H 8.9 8.9
RMED-1D 33.6 RMED-1D 33.6 33.6 RMED-1D 33.8 33.6
RMED-2D 44.6 RMED-2D 44.5 44.6 RMED-2D 44.4 44.5
SAAR 1010.00 SAAR 1008.00 1010 999.71 SAAR 1006.00 1008 1003.52
SAAR4170 975 SAAR4170 973 975 SAAR4170 971 973
SPRHOST 39.70 SPRHOST 39.70 39.7 39.70 SPRHOST 39.70 39.7 39.70
URBCONC1990 0.574 URBCONC1990 0.59 0.574 URBCONC1990 0.758 0.59
URBEXT1990 0.15 URBEXT1990 0.14 0.1515 0.11 URBEXT1990 0.18 0.1436 0.22
URBLOC1990 1.129 URBLOC1990 1.140 1.129 URBLOC1990 1.014 1.14
URBCONC2000 0.750 URBCONC2000 0.773 0.75 URBCONC2000 0.851 0.773
URBEXT2000 0.08 URBEXT2000 0.07 0.0758 0.03 URBEXT2000 0.11 0.0675 0.17
URBLOC2000 1.573 URBLOC2000 1.516 1.573 URBLOC2000 1.006 1.516
C -0.015 C -0.015 -0.01481 -0.015 C -0.015 -0.01476 -0.014
D1 0.410 D1 0.410 0.40957 0.411 D1 0.410 0.40979 0.411
D2 0.371 D2 0.369 0.37085 0.362 D2 0.363 0.3691 0.355
D3 0.364 D3 0.364 0.36439 0.365 D3 0.366 0.36448 0.367
E 0.241 E 0.241 0.24106 0.241 E 0.241 0.24111 0.242
F 2.306 F 2.307 2.30566 2.312 F 2.313 2.30681 2.320
C(1km) -0.015 C(1km) -0.014 -0.015 -0.010 C(1km) -0.015 -0.014 -0.016
D1(1km) 0.410 D1(1km) 0.412 0.41 0.420 D1(1km) 0.412 0.412 0.412
D2(1km) 0.376 D2(1km) 0.356 0.376 0.273 D2(1km) 0.355 0.356 0.354
D3(1km) 0.362 D3(1km) 0.365 0.362 0.377 D3(1km) 0.370 0.365 0.376
E(1km) 0.241 E(1km) 0.241 0.241 0.241 E(1km) 0.243 0.241 0.245
F(1km) 2.303 F(1km) 2.315 2.303 2.365 F(1km) 2.316 2.315 2.317
Molendinar Burn subcatchment characteristics Tolcross Burn subcatchment characteristics Bishop Burn subcatchment characteristics
Inflow point Inter Mol_2-Mol_3 Inflow point Tolcross_us Inflow point B_1
Grid ref Grid ref Grid ref
Inflow type Point Inflow type point Inflow type point
Mol_4 Mol_3 Mol_1 B_1
Grid Ref: NS 63850 67200 NS 64500 67450 Grid Ref: NS 68100 64950 Grid Ref: NS 70700 64200
AREA 2.34 1.3 1.04 AREA 2.7 AREA 1.66
ALTBAR 89 89 ALTBAR 79 ALTBAR 82
ASPBAR 277 234 ASPBAR 209 ASPBAR 207
ASPVAR 0.22 0.12 ASPVAR 0.2 ASPVAR 0.4
BFIHOST 0.31 0.312 BFIHOST 0.37 BFIHOST 0.354
DPLBAR 1.46 1.26 1.02 DPLBAR 2.04 DPLBAR 1.53
DPSBAR 21.90 20.5 23.65 DPSBAR 39.70 DPSBAR 37.7
FARL 1 1 FARL 1 FARL 1
FPEXT 0.1455 0.2096 FPEXT 0.1027 FPEXT 0.0964
FPDBAR 0.741 1.146 FPDBAR 0.834 FPDBAR 0.699
FPBLOC 1.175 0.935 FPBLOC 1.028 FPBLOC 0.839
LDP 3.51 2.76 LDP 3.62 LDP 2.88
PROPWET 0.58 0.58 0.58 PROPWET 0.58 PROPWET 0.58
RMED-1H 9 8.9 RMED-1H 8.5 RMED-1H 8.5
RMED-1D 33.9 33.8 RMED-1D 31 RMED-1D 30.9
RMED-2D 44.2 44.4 RMED-2D 41.4 RMED-2D 41.3
SAAR 1000.00 1006 992.50 SAAR 931.00 SAAR 923
SAAR4170 970 971 SAAR4170 915 SAAR4170 910
SPRHOST 39.70 39.7 39.70 SPRHOST 41.90 SPRHOST 41.24
URBCONC1990 0.692 0.758 URBCONC1990 0.705 URBCONC1990 0.613
URBEXT1990 0.13 0.1779 0.07 URBEXT1990 0.10 URBEXT1990 0.0309
URBLOC1990 1.187 1.014 URBLOC1990 0.820 URBLOC1990 1.004
URBCONC2000 0.818 0.851 URBCONC2000 0.826 URBCONC2000 1
URBEXT2000 0.09 0.1135 0.07 URBEXT2000 0.12 URBEXT2000 0.009
URBLOC2000 1.155 1.006 URBLOC2000 0.871 URBLOC2000 1.352
C -0.015 -0.01462 -0.015 C -0.014 C -0.01431
D1 0.410 0.41013 0.409 D1 0.391 D1 0.3912
D2 0.357 0.36297 0.350 D2 0.373 D2 0.37644
D3 0.369 0.36565 0.372 D3 0.384 D3 0.38421
E 0.242 0.24136 0.243 E 0.239 E 0.23925
F 2.319 2.31257 2.327 F 2.279 F 2.27733
C(1km) -0.015 -0.015 -0.015 C(1km) -0.014 C(1km) -0.014
D1(1km) 0.408 0.412 0.403 D1(1km) 0.396 D1(1km) 0.39
D2(1km) 0.346 0.355 0.335 D2(1km) 0.373 D2(1km) 0.377
D3(1km) 0.375 0.37 0.381 D3(1km) 0.391 D3(1km) 0.385
E(1km) 0.244 0.243 0.245 E(1km) 0.238 E(1km) 0.238
F(1km) 2.335 2.316 2.359 F(1km) 2.282 F(1km) 2.276
AECOM
Appendix D – Figures