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