{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":25,"sheets":["Intro","Guidance","Inputs","Summary","Lookups","Treatment wetland","Not treatment wetland","Riparian Buffer Strips","Channel re-naturalisation","Engineered logjams","Silt traps","PTP | ST Orchards","Drainage ditch blocking","100% infiltration SuDS","Treatment train SuDS","Silvopasture","Water efficiency","Silvo-arable","Ag. land out of production","Aquaculture offsetting","Private Chemical PTPs","Private Biological PTPs","Private ST | PTP Upgrades","PTPs managed by NAV","Farmyard | Barn Removal"],"not_rendered":{"charts":20,"images":4,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":2,"comments":2,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Intro","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":13,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Image Source:\nHerman Wanningen\nRiver restoration works\nCopyright: © Herman Wanningen"]

{"sheet":"Guidance","index":1,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[20,2,20,17],[21,2,21,17],[22,2,22,17],[23,2,23,17],[15,2,15,17],[16,2,16,17],[17,2,17,17],[18,2,18,17],[19,2,19,17],[4,2,4,18],[11,2,11,17],[12,2,12,17],[13,2,13,17],[14,2,14,17],[7,2,7,18]]}
[]
[null,null,"Guidance"]
[]
[null,null,"Background Information"]
[null,null,"The overall objective of the project is to provide a support to Natural England employees to enable them to make informed judgements on Nature-based Solutions proposals for nutrient mitigation. It comprises 3 parts where: \n -  Part 1 (the literature review) provides the evidence base on the effectiveness of five different NbS for nutrient mitigation including the methodology applied. \n -  Part 2 (the Framework) considers the design, implementation, monitoring and maintenance needs and how to determine an upfront scheme specific nutrient reduction (where applicable). There are five framework documents, one for each of the five mitigation solutions considered in Part 1.\n -  Part 3 (this tool known as the lookup tool) comprises a user-friendly lookup tool with high-level practical information on a range of potential nutrient mitigation solutions."]
[]
[null,null,"How to use the Tool"]
[null,null,"There are two key ways of using this tool:\n1. To work out which nutrient mitigation options are likely to work in a given environment: To use the tool in this way the user must enter the source of nutrients available and whether or not onsite or offsite mitigation is required into the Inputs sheet. The tool will then return a list of mitigation options which fit the given criteria. The scheme-specific measure sheets provide more detail, whilst the summary sheet provides an easy overview and comparison between the returned measures. It is worth noting that the tool covers some of the potential mitigation measures but is not exhaustive.\n2. To learn more about one specific mitigation measure: To use the tool in this way the user can go straight to the sheet of any mitigation measure to find out the scheme-specific details. Alternatively the user can view the summary sheet for an easy overview and comparison between all mitigation options."]
[]
[null,null,"Category Definitions"]
[null,null,"The following bullet points define the categories visible within the summary tab of each mitigation solution to provide context as to their meanings."]
[null,null,"Description of solutions: A brief description and summary of how the solution removes nutrients from the water source. "]
[null,null,"Applicable input sources: The sources of nutrients that are applicable for nutrient removal by the mitigation solution. "]
[null,null,"Likely stakeholders for engagement: Organisations or key individuals that may be needed for cooperation and engagement in order to approve or allow the scheme to be developed within a certain area. This list is indicative of likely stakeholders but is not exhaustive and will vary from scheme to scheme. "]
[null,null,"What's needed for certainty: Pre- and post-implementation requirements to achieve reasonable scientific certainty to claim credits from the scheme"]
[null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy: The percentage reduction in nutrient load as a result of the mitigation of the source of nutrients the mitigation is addressing e.g. 5 mg/l influent to 1 mg/l effluent as a result of a mitigation scheme would be a reduction of 80%."]
[null,null,"Land take required: The amount of land necessary (low, medium, high) for the scheme to be effective at nutrient removal. Important considerations regarding land-take are also included here."]
[null,null,"Wider considerations of environmental conditions: A description of local considerations that may impact the long term effectiveness of a scheme's nutrient removal that are specifically linked to extraneous environmental variables. "]
[null,null,"Constraints: Limitations and restrictions which must be considered upfront to ensure that a scheme is applicable in a given location."]
[null,null,"Time to effectiveness: The time considered is from when a mitigation scheme has been identified as a potential option to when effective nutrient removal is taking place. This accounts for the time required for the mitigation design, planning and delivery. Some schemes might take longer than this to achieve maximum nutrient removal efficiency."]
[null,null,"Ease of implementation: Defined as three levels of ease (easy, medium and hard) in which the process of putting the scheme into effect will take. This is based on complexity of design, engineering requirements, and implementation needs such as requirements for heavy machinery."]
[null,null,"Maintenance: Three maintenance levels (easy, medium and hard) that outline the level of maintenance required in order to preserve the condition of the scheme to ensure effective nutrient removal in perpetuity."]
[null,null,"Cost of implementation: Described within three bands (low, medium and high) which indicate the expense associated with deploying the scheme. "]
[null,null,"Wider benefits: Described within three levels (low, medium, high) to outline the degree of additional advantages which are likely to be gained as a result of implementing the scheme. These benefits are water purification, biodiversity, amenity, carbon sequestration, and hazard regulation (flood and drought management). There are likely to be additional wider benefits which have not been considered within this tool."]

{"sheet":"Inputs","index":2,"n_rows":21,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":21,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,2,4,4],[14,8,14,10],[8,6,8,7],[9,6,9,7],[10,6,10,7],[4,6,4,10],[5,6,5,7],[6,6,6,7],[7,6,7,7],[5,8,5,10],[14,6,14,7],[11,6,11,7],[13,6,13,7],[20,2,25,10],[16,3,16,4],[12,6,12,7],[15,8,15,10],[16,6,16,10]]}
[]
[null,null," Filters"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"User Inputs",null,null,null,"List of Returned Results",null,null,null,null,null,null,"return all if none checked. Don't check none"]
[null,null,"Source of nutrients available for removal",null,null,null,"Treatment wetland",null,"Silvopasture",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G6,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I6,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"OR(N6:N13)","v":false}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Not treatment wetland",null,"Water efficiency",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G7,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I7,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Riparian Buffer Strips",null,"Silvo-arable",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G8,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I8,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Channel re-naturalisation",null,"Taking agricultural land out of production",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G9,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(SUBSTITUTE(I9,\"Taking agricultural land out of production\",\"Ag. land out of production\"),Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Engineered logjams",null,"Aquaculture offsetting",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G10,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I10,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Silt traps",null,"Private Chemical PTPs",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G11,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I11,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"PTP | ST Orchards",null,"Private Biological PTPs",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G12,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I12,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Drainage ditch blocking",null,"Private ST | PTP Upgrades",null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G13,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I13,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,"Are you looking for onsite or offsite mitigation",null,null,null,"100% infiltration SuDS",null,"PTPs managed by NAV",null,null,null,null,{"$error":"#N/A"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G14,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I14,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$error":"#N/A"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,"Treatment train SuDS",null,"Farmyard | Barn Removal",null,null,null,null,{"$error":"#N/A"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G15,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I15,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":true}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,false,{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(G16,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$A:$A,MATCH(I16,Lookups!$F:$F,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"OR(N16:N17)","v":false}]
[null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!$a$1\",Summary!$C$2)","v":"Summary Table "},null,null,{"$f":"\"Total: \"&COUNTIF(O6:P16,TRUE)","v":"Total: 20"},null,null,null,null,null,null,false]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Guidelines"]
[null,null,"Prior to using this tool, it would be beneficial for the user to have a high level estimate of the amount of mitigation required for N and/or P. This is needed to give a broad indication of what will be suitable through filtering on the inputs tab. \n\nThe following bullet points outline how the inputs tab should be used: \n 1.  Enter as much or as little information into the initial filters as desired. \n    -  Entering nothing will produce every mitigation option as an output on the following slides \n    -  If uncertain about the options, default to leaving more filters ticked so as not to accidentally rule out any relevant mitigation options\n 2.  Based on the user inputs, viable mitigation solutions are provided on the next sheets\n 3.  The user can come back and adjust their inputs to this sheet repeatedly until the desirable outcome is met"]

{"sheet":"Summary","index":3,"n_rows":31,"n_cols":24,"rows_kept":31,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[30,2,30,10]]}
[]
[null,null,"Summary Table "]
[]
[null,null,"Mitigation Solution","Input Source of N and/or P","% Scale of N reduction","% Scale of P reduction","Management/Maintenance Requirements","Ease of Implementation","Time to Effectiveness","Cost of Implementation","Wider Benefits",null,null,null,null,{"$f":"MATCH(C4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":6},{"$f":"MATCH(D4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":7},{"$f":"MATCH(E4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":8},{"$f":"MATCH(F4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":9},{"$f":"MATCH(G4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":10},{"$f":"MATCH(H4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":11},{"$f":"MATCH(I4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":12},{"$f":"MATCH(J4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":13},{"$f":"MATCH(K4,Lookups!2:2,0)","v":14}]
[null,null,{"$f":"IFERROR(HYPERLINK(\"#'\"&P5&\"'!A1\",P5),\"\")","v":"Treatment wetland"},{"$f":"IFERROR(Q5,\"\")","v":"Rivers/streams and sewage/wastewater or industrial point sources with consistent characteristics "},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,1,{"$f":"MATCH(N5,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":4},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,P$4)","v":"Treatment wetland"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,Q$4)","v":"Rivers/streams and sewage/wastewater or industrial point sources with consistent characteristics "},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,S$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,T$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,U$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,W$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O5,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,{"$f":"IFERROR(HYPERLINK(\"#'\"&P6&\"'!A1\",P6),\"\")","v":"Not treatment wetland"},{"$f":"IFERROR(Q6,\"\")","v":"Rivers/streams and uncontrolled agricultural/urban diffuse or point sources"},null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,2,{"$f":"MATCH(N6,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":5},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,P$4)","v":"Not treatment wetland"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,Q$4)","v":"Rivers/streams and uncontrolled agricultural/urban diffuse or point sources"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,S$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,T$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,V$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O6,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Riparian Buffer Strips","Agricultural diffuse water sources",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,3,{"$f":"MATCH(N7,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":6},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,P$4)","v":"Riparian Buffer Strips"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,Q$4)","v":"Agricultural diffuse water sources"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,S$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,T$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,U$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O7,X$4)","v":1}]
[null,null,"Channel re-naturalisation","Rivers and streams",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,4,{"$f":"MATCH(N8,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":7},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,P$4)","v":"Channel re-naturalisation"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,Q$4)","v":"Rivers and streams"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,S$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,U$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O8,X$4)","v":1}]
[null,null,"Engineered logjams","Rivers and streams",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,5,{"$f":"MATCH(N9,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":8},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,P$4)","v":"Engineered logjams"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,Q$4)","v":"Rivers and streams"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,S$4)","v":1003},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O9,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Silt traps","Agricultural and urban diffuse water sources",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,6,{"$f":"MATCH(N10,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":9},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,P$4)","v":"Silt traps"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,Q$4)","v":"Agricultural and urban diffuse water sources"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,R$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,S$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,T$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,U$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O10,X$4)","v":3}]
[null,null,"PTP | ST Orchards","PTP and ST effluent",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,7,{"$f":"MATCH(N11,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":10},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,P$4)","v":"PTP | ST Orchards"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,Q$4)","v":"PTP and ST effluent"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,R$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,S$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,T$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O11,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Drainage ditch blocking","Rivers/streams and agricultural diffuse or point sources",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,8,{"$f":"MATCH(N12,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":11},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,P$4)","v":"Drainage ditch blocking"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,Q$4)","v":"Rivers/streams and agricultural diffuse or point sources"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,S$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O12,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"100% infiltration SuDS","Urban runoff",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,9,{"$f":"MATCH(N13,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":12},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,P$4)","v":"100% infiltration SuDS"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,Q$4)","v":"Urban runoff"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,S$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O13,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Treatment train SuDS","Urban runoff",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,10,{"$f":"MATCH(N14,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":13},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,P$4)","v":"Treatment train SuDS"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,Q$4)","v":"Urban runoff"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,R$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,S$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,T$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,U$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,W$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O14,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Silvopasture","Agricultural diffuse water sources and fertiliser input",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,11,{"$f":"MATCH(N15,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":14},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,P$4)","v":"Silvopasture"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,Q$4)","v":"Agricultural diffuse water sources and fertiliser input"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,R$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,S$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,T$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O15,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Water efficiency","Water used in homes",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,12,{"$f":"MATCH(N16,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":15},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,P$4)","v":"Water efficiency"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,Q$4)","v":"Water used in homes"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,R$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,S$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,U$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O16,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Silvo-arable","Agricultural diffuse water sources and fertiliser input",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,13,{"$f":"MATCH(N17,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":16},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,P$4)","v":"Silvo-arable"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,Q$4)","v":"Agricultural diffuse water sources and fertiliser input"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,R$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,S$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,T$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O17,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Ag. land out of production","Fertiliser input",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,14,{"$f":"MATCH(N18,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":17},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,P$4)","v":"Ag. land out of production"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,Q$4)","v":"Fertiliser input"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,R$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,S$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,U$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O18,X$4)","v":1}]
[null,null,"Aquaculture offsetting","Fish food and fish excretion",null,null,null," ",null,null,null,null,null,15,{"$f":"MATCH(N19,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":18},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,P$4)","v":"Aquaculture offsetting"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,Q$4)","v":"Fish food and fish excretion"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,R$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,S$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O19,X$4)","v":2}]
[null,null,"Private Chemical PTPs","Sewage/wastewater",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,16,{"$f":"MATCH(N20,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":19},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,P$4)","v":"Private Chemical PTPs"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,Q$4)","v":"Sewage/wastewater"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,R$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,S$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,T$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O20,X$4)","v":3}]
[null,null,"Private Biological PTPs","Sewage/wastewater",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,17,{"$f":"MATCH(N21,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":20},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,P$4)","v":"Private Biological PTPs"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,Q$4)","v":"Sewage/wastewater"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,R$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,S$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,T$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O21,X$4)","v":3}]
[null,null,"Private ST | PTP Upgrades","Sewage/wastewater",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,18,{"$f":"MATCH(N22,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":21},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,P$4)","v":"Private ST | PTP Upgrades"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,Q$4)","v":"Sewage/wastewater"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,R$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,S$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,T$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O22,X$4)","v":3}]
[null,null,"PTPs managed by NAV","Sewage/wastewater",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,19,{"$f":"MATCH(N23,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":22},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,P$4)","v":"PTPs managed by NAV"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,Q$4)","v":"Sewage/wastewater"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,R$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,S$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,T$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,U$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,V$4)","v":2},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,W$4)","v":2},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O23,X$4)","v":3}]
[null,null,"Farmyard | barn removal","Agricultural diffuse or point sources",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,20,{"$f":"MATCH(N24,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":23},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,P$4)","v":"Farmyard | barn removal"},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,Q$4)","v":"Agricultural diffuse or point sources"},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,R$4)","v":3},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,S$4)","v":3},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,T$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,U$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,V$4)","v":1},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,W$4)","v":1},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O24,X$4)","v":3}]
[null,null,"","",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,21,{"$f":"MATCH(N25,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,P$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,Q$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,R$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,S$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,T$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,U$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,V$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,W$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O25,X$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,null,"","",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,22,{"$f":"MATCH(N26,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,P$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,Q$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,R$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,S$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,T$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,U$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,V$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,W$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O26,X$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,null,"","",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,23,{"$f":"MATCH(N27,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,P$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,Q$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,R$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,S$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,T$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,U$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,V$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,W$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O27,X$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,null,"","",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,24,{"$f":"MATCH(N28,Lookups!B:B,0)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,P$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,Q$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,R$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,S$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,T$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,U$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,V$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,W$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}},{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,$O28,X$4)","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[]
[null,null,"Colour Coding"]
[null,null,"An explanation for each variable's colour coding is provided below:\n- Scale of N / P reduction: Red refers to a low potential reduction with reference to percentage efficacy, as opposed to expected influent loads\n- Management / maintenance requirements: Red refers to intensive management / maintenance requirements\n- Ease of implementation: Red refers to a complex and difficult implementation process\n- Lag time to reach efficiency: Red refers to a long lag time\n- Cost of implementation: Red refers to high costs\n- Wider benefits: Red refers to minimal wider benefits"]

{"sheet":"Lookups","index":4,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":33,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[0,2,0,4]]}
[null,null,"Filters",null,null,"Summary only","Summary only","Summary only","Summary only","Summary and detailed outputs","Summary and detailed outputs","Summary only","Summary and detailed outputs","Summary and detailed outputs","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs only","Detailed outputs - Additional benefits graph","Detailed outputs - Additional benefits graph","Detailed outputs - Additional benefits graph","Detailed outputs - Additional benefits graph","Detailed outputs - Additional benefits graph","Detailed outputs only"]
["Include",0,"Source of nutrients available for removal","Longevity of the measure","Are you looking for onsite or offsite mitigation","Mitigation Solution","Input Source of N and/or P","% Scale of N reduction","% Scale of P reduction","Management/Maintenance Requirements","Ease of Implementation","Time to Effectiveness","Cost of Implementation","Wider Benefits","Time to Effectiveness - text","Time to Effectiveness - free text","Ease of Implementation - free text","Maintenance - free text","Cost of Implementation - free text","Scale of nutrient reduction - free text","Description of Solution - free text","Land take required - free text","Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text","Applicable Input Sources","Likely Stakeholders for Engagement","Biodiversity","Hazard Regulation","Amenity","Carbon Sequestration","Water Purification","Whats needed for certainty","Wider Benefits - free text","Constraints "]
[]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$6,Inputs!N$7,Inputs!N$8,Inputs!N$9,Inputs!N$10,Inputs!N$11,Inputs!N$12,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(NOT(Inputs!N$17),Inputs!Q$16))","v":true},{"$f":"B3+IF(A4,1,0)","v":1},"Wastewater treatment works, Other industrial/urban point sources","Permanent","Offsite","Treatment wetland","Rivers/streams and sewage/wastewater or industrial point sources with consistent characteristics ",2,2,2,1,2,3,2,"1-3 yrs","From identifying treatment wetlands as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take between 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. However, evidencing the full effectiveness of nutrient removal may take longer than 1-3 years.","Treatment wetland schemes require engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to hydraulic performance, wetland design, site condition (soils, topography, geology etc), flood risk and environmental permitting.","Treatment wetlands require vegetation management and periodic sediment removal to prevent remobilisation of nutrients, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. ","The design and construction requirements of treatment wetlands means that these schemes are ranked as high cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in treatment wetlands, the likely removal capacity of point source wetlands for both N and P is medium. This assumes a consistent inflow of nutrient enriched water. ","Treatment wetlands are either natural or constructed systems managed in a specific manner to treat a source of water through a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes.  They have a fixed or closed water source, the likely inflow rates rate, variability of water quality and hydraulic retention time can be well defined and there is a low risk of uncontrolled water levels. ","Low to medium. Depends on flow rate and concentration of nutrients in water entering the wetland. Lower N and P concentrations and/or higher flow rates = larger wetlands needed.","A treatment wetland proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient concentrations, long-term changes in inflow rates, climate change impacts on wetland efficacy.","Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source, Flowing waterbodies (lotic), Aquaculture, Urban Areas, Wastewater treatment works, Other industrial/urban point sources, New Development Sites","NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs, Water Companies",2,2,2,1,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Must be a treatment wetland with influent P concs > 0.1 mg/l and N concs > 4 - 5 mg/l to gain credits upfront.","A well-designed treatment wetland could also deliver a high level of water purification benefits, medium levels of biodiversity, hazard reduction and amenity benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration.","If at a WwTW consider any planned permit upgrades. May be permitting constraints in catchments of rivers with water availability issues. Wetlands should not be deployed on a pre-existing wetland habitat, should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$7,Inputs!N$8,Inputs!N$11,Inputs!N$12,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(NOT(Inputs!N$17),Inputs!Q$16))","v":true},2,"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source","Permanent","Offsite","Not treatment wetland","Rivers/streams and uncontrolled agricultural/urban diffuse or point sources",2,2,2,2,3,1,2,"1-3 yrs","From identifying these wetlands as a possible solution, with a robust design and well characterised influent nutrient loads it is likely that they will take 1 - 3 years to start removing nutrients. Due to the difficulty of characterising flows and loads, post-implementation monitoring is required to calculate credits, however evidencing the full nutrient removal potential may take longer than 1-3 years.","Not treatment wetland schemes require engineering design and construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","These wetlands require periodic sediment removal to prevent remobilisation of nutrients and wetland infilling, as well as vegetation management where applicable, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. ","Simple design and construction, and low land take for not treatment wetlands means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the nutrient removal processes, the likely efficacy of these wetlands for both N and P is medium. Moderate N and P concentrations in agricultural runoff supports medium nutrient removal potential.  ","Not treatment wetlands differ from treatment wetlands as their hydrology is more dynamic and the ability to manage and control water inflows and water levels is considerably more challenging. However, these wetlands can all be designed, created or restored as part of an overall strategy for managing nutrients in the aquatic environment.","A scalable solution. Size and land take will depend on amount of runoff enter the wetland. Can be deployed with minimal land take. ","A wetland proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient concentrations, long-term changes in inflow rates, and climate change impacts on wetland efficacy. ","Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs",2,2,1,1,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan required to claim credits upfront. Monitoring required for credit generation.","A well-designed not treatment wetland could also deliver a high level of water purification benefits, medium levels of biodiversity and hazard reduction and low levels of carbon sequestration and amenity benefits.","May be permitting constraints in catchments of rivers with water availability issues. Possible increased flood risk if infrastructure or agricultural land is nearby. It should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$7,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},{"$f":"B5+IF(A6,1,0)","v":3},"Agricultural diffuse source","Permanent","Offsite","Riparian Buffer Strips","Agricultural diffuse water sources",2,2,2,3,1,2,3,"< 1 yr","From identifying riparian buffer strips as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a buffer strip. It may take longer than 1 year to evidence the full effectiveness of buffer strips for nutrient removal.  ","Riparian buffer schemes have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, influent flow rate and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Riparian buffers will require periodic vegetation maintenance and potentially fencing maintenance, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. ","The design and implementation costs regarding tree planting, and low land take for riparian buffers means that these schemes are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in riparian buffers, the likely percentage removal capacity of riparian buffers for both N and P is medium. Moderate N and P concentrations in agricultural runoff supports medium nutrient removal potential.  ","A riparian buffer strip is a vegetated area along the banks of a flowing waterbody, which for nutrient neutrality purposes includes trees. It filters nutrient pollution from adjacent land uses. ","Variable land take. Generally, larger schemes = greater nutrient removal potential. Buffers should be minimum 10m width and wider where there are converging flows/increased loads.","A riparian buffer proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal efficacy, long-term erosion risks.","Agricultural diffuse source","NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs",3,2,1,3,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits for N and P upfront. ","A well-designed buffer strip could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, water purification, and biodiversity benefits as well as medium levels of hazard reduction, and low levels of amenity benefit. ","Landowner agreement, 10m minimum width, water needs to flow through the buffer and not bypass it. The soil type should not compromise the efficacy of the buffer. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$8,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},4,"Flowing waterbodies (lotic)","Permanent","Offsite","Channel re-naturalisation","Rivers and streams",2,1,1,1,2,2,3,"1-3 yrs; 3+ yrs","From identifying river channel re-naturalisation as a possible solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between 1 and 3+ years to start removing nutrients. Credits for N can be claimed upfront but monitoring is required to evidence P removal, therefore quantifying P credits will take longer. Regardless, it may take longer than 3 years to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.","Channel re-naturalisation schemes require engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, stream hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, environmental permitting, local soil conditions.","Channel re-naturalisation schemes should self-regulate if well designed, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. ","The design and construction of channel re-naturalisation schemes means that these schemes are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in re-naturalised channels, the likely removal capacity is medium for N and low for P. However, N and P removal processes combined with the concentrations in watercourses are often insufficient for large amounts of nutrient removal to take place.  ","River channel re-naturalisation seeks to reinstate natural processes to anthropogenically modified river channels, and in turn promotes natural nutrient removal processes.","Low to medium. Re-naturalisation can take place entirely within the existing footprint of a river channel. Larger schemes involving floodplain reconnection will require more land.","A channel re-naturalisation proposal may need to consider: long-term changes to nutrient concentrations and river flows, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes.","Flowing waterbodies (lotic)","NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs",3,3,3,2,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N & P removal. ","Well-designed channel re-naturalisation schemes could also deliver higher levels of biodiversity, hazard reduction and water purification benefits and amenity benefit, and medium levels of carbon sequestration. ","Sufficient influent nutrient concentrations as well as hyporheic exchange capacity within benthic, riparian, and floodplain soils. Flood risk to nearby infrastructure if a scheme involves re-connecting to floodplains. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$8,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},5,"Flowing waterbodies (lotic)","Permanent","Offsite","Engineered logjams","Rivers and streams",2,-999,1,2,1,1,2,"< 1 yr","From identifying engineered logjams as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a  scheme. It may take longer than 1 year to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  ","Engineered logjams require some hydraulic design and may need construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, channel hydraulics/hydrology and nutrient concentrations, local geology and soil conditions.","Engineered logjam schemes should largely self-regulate if well designed and require periodic visual inspection and maintenance, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. ","Simple design and implementation, and low land take for engineered logjams means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","The likely removal capacity of engineered logjams for N is medium, due to the ability to trap sediment and promote various nutrient removal processes. These schemes cannot be implemented to gain P credits due to the temporary nature of the P removal processes.","Engineered logjams reduce flow velocities and trap sediments and nutrients through the temporary storage of water within the stream channel. They mimic the processes caused by beaver dams.","Low to medium. Small engineered logjams require an allowance for some land around a river channel to be flooded. The larger the scheme, the greater the allowance for flooding.","An engineered logjam proposal may need to consider: long-term changes to nutrient concentrations and river flows, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes.","Flowing waterbodies (lotic)","NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs",2,3,2,1,2,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N removal. Not valid for P due to the temporary P removal processes.","A well-designed engineered logjam could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction, medium levels of amenity benefit, water purification and biodiversity, and low levels of carbon sequestration. ","Flood risk to nearby infrastructure and agricultural land. It is recommended that narrower rivers (<2m) are more likely to be well suited to engineered logjams. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$7,Inputs!N$11,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},6,"Agricultural diffuse source","Temporary","Offsite","Silt traps","Agricultural and urban diffuse water sources",1,2,2,3,1,1,1,"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs","From identifying silt traps as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1yr - 3 years to start removing nutrients, including time required to design and implement a scheme. However, robust monitoring is required to evidence nutrient removal, therefore quantifying credits will take longer. Regardless, it may take longer than that to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.","Silt traps have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, local landcover.","Silt traps require regular sediment removal and disposal for them to continue functioning, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. Consideration as to where the waste will be disposed and that it won't increase nutrients to the site.  ","Simple design and implementation, and low land take for silt traps means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","The likely removal capacity of silt traps for P is medium due to the ability to trap considerable quantities of sediment and organic material.  For N, however, the likely removal potential is low as the scheme focusses on deposition and N is much less readily bound to sediments than P.","Silt traps intercept runoff in the landscape or flow in a river, slowing the flow so that suspended sediments and nutrients are trapped and can be removed. ","Low. Silt traps require little land to be deployed in the terrestrial landscape and no land if being deployed in a fluvial environment. ","A silt trap proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient loads.","Agricultural diffuse source","NE, Land Owners, LPAs, EA",1,1,1,1,2,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Need pre and post-implementation monitoring outputs to gain credits.","A silt trap could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration, amenity, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. ","Silt traps should not be built in areas of high velocities which are likely to cause damage and impact nutrient removal via remobilisation of sediments. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$10,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(NOT(Inputs!N$17),Inputs!Q$16))","v":true},7,"Agricultural diffuse source, New development sites","Temporary","Offsite","PTP | ST Orchards","PTP and ST effluent",1,1,3,2,2,1,2,"1-3 yrs","From identifying orchards schemes at PTP discharge sites as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take between 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement the scheme. It may take longer than 3 years to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  ","Orchard schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Orchard schemes require regular harvesting and vegetation management, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. ","Simple design and implementation means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","The likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is medium. The actual nutrient removal is highly dependent upon the location and input nutrient sources. ","Orchards planted where small PTPs or septic tanks discharge to the ground act as a mitigation solution through harvesting as nutrients are removed from the system via plant matter and yields.","Medium to High. Orchards require land with a nutrient source such as a septic tank or PTP. The system is scalable, delivering more mitigation from larger schemes. ","An orchard proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by the trees.","Agricultural diffuse source, New development sites","NE, Land Owners, LPAs, EA",1,2,1,3,2,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Quantify N & P removal based on yield. ","An orchard scheme could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, medium levels of water purification and hazard reduction, and low levels of amenity benefit and biodiversity benefits. ","These schemes should only be located in areas with verifiably high influent nutrient concentrations otherwise they are unlikely to provide any benefit. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$6,Inputs!N$7,Inputs!N$8,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},8,"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source","Permanent","Offsite","Drainage ditch blocking","Rivers/streams and agricultural diffuse or point sources",2,2,1,2,1,1,2,"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs","From identifying drainage ditch blocking schemes as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1yr to 3 years to start removing nutrients, including time required to design and implement a scheme. Credits can be claimed for N and P upfront. Regardless, it may take longer than this year to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.","Drainage ditch blocking schemes require ditch block design and may need construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Drainage ditch blocking schemes should largely self-regulate if well designed, requiring periodic visual inspection and maintenance, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. Depending on the location, desilting might be required. If the surrounding land is in agricultural production this will be important to prevent lateral inundation. Where surrounding land is no longer farmed, however, this might not be necessary.","Simple design and implementation, and low land take for ditch blocking means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in ditch blocking schemes, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is medium, due to the ability to trap sediment and promote various nutrient removal processes.  ","Drainage ditches are blocked, trapping agricultural runoff in the ditch, increasing water table heights and promoting various nutrient immobilisation and cycling processes that remove nutrients. ","Low. Drainage ditch blocking schemes require a relatively small allowance for some land around a ditch to be inundated.","A drainage ditch blocking proposal may need to consider: long-term changes influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes.","Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source","NE, Land Owners, Env. NGOs, LPAs, EA",2,3,1,2,2,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N & P removal. ","A well-designed ditch blocking scheme could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction (subject to location), medium levels of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water purification, and low levels of amenity benefit. ","Water must flow through the scheme and not bypass via it groundwater. Flooding impacts should be considered, especially where the land is agricultural or infrastructure is nearby. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$11,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(NOT(Inputs!N$17),Inputs!Q$16))","v":true},9,"New development sites","Permanent","Onsite","100% infiltration SuDS","Urban runoff",2,3,1,2,1,2,2,"< 1 yr","From identifying 100% infiltration SuDS as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1 year to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme within a housing development. It may take longer to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  ","100% infiltration SuDS require engineering and hydraulic design, and construction management, thus scoring medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","100% infiltration SuDS require periodic inspection and maintenance to ensure drainage is not compromised, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. ","Costs for consultancy, design and construction means that 100% infiltration SuDS are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in 100% infiltration SuDS have a medium score for N removal capacity and a high score for P removal. The higher rating P is due to the tendency for P to bind to sediments more than N. ","100% infiltration SuDS provide drainage in urban environments, infiltrating runoff though subsoil and removing nutrients and other pollutants in the process.","Low. This type of SuDS is usually buried and does not require a lot of land.","100% infiltration SuDS may need to consider: long-term changes to influent nutrient loads.","New development sites, Urban areas","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, LPAs, EA",2,3,2,1,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits.","100% infiltration SuDS could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction and water purification, medium levels of amenity and biodiversity benefits, and low levels of carbon sequestration. ","Consideration needs to be given to the local geology and possible presence of Source Protection Zones where the rules and requirements are likely to be more stringent. The benefits of freely draining soils which encourage infiltration and increase the likelihood of nutrient removal."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$11,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(NOT(Inputs!N$17),Inputs!Q$16))","v":true},10,"New development sites","Permanent","Onsite","Treatment train SuDS","Urban runoff",2,3,2,1,1,3,2,"< 1 yr","From identifying treatment train SuDS as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 year to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme within a housing development. It may take longer to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  ","Treatment train SuDS require engineering and hydraulic design, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Treatment train SuDS may require a mix of vegetation management, desilting, rubbish removal and drainage checks but at relatively low frequency, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. ","More extensive requirements for consultancy, design and construction means that treatment train SuDS are likely ranked as higher cost relative to other mitigation options although it will be dependent on the exact SuDS components used in any treatment train. ","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in treatment train SuDS, the likely removal percentage removal capacity of these schemes is medium for N and high for P. The reduction is dependent upon the influent N and P concentrations and the design of the SuDS. ","Treatment train SuDS manage urban runoff, mimicking natural drainage processes in urban environment. The treatment train uses a sequence of SuDS features that can provide nutrient removal.","Treatment trains will require a small amount of land. Owing to land constraints, they are most likely to be implemented on new development sites however can be retrofitted to pre-existing developments.","Treatment train SuDS may need to consider: long-term changes to influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes. ","New development sites, Urban areas","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, LPAs, EA",2,3,2,1,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits.","Treatment train SuDS could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction and water purification, medium levels of biodiversity and amenity benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration. ","There are constraints such as surrounding land-take and the benefits off freely draining soils which encourage infiltration will increase the likelihood of nutrient removal."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$7,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},11,"Agricultural diffuse source","Permanent","Offsite","Silvopasture","Agricultural diffuse water sources and fertiliser input",1,1,2,2,2,1,2,"1-3 yrs","From identifying silvopasture as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take 1-3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. It may take longer than this to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  ","Silvopasture schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Silvopasture schemes require harvesting and vegetation management additional to current agricultural operations, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. ","Simple design and implementation on already owned land means that silvopasture schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in silvopasture schemes, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is low. There is little evidence for high nutrient removal from these schemes.","Silvopasture is a farming system where trees are incorporated within pastures used for livestock production. It increases the benefits from natural biological processes within a farmed landscape, including nutrient retention from agricultural sources. ","High. Silvopasture requires a significant area of pasture for tree planting, however the area will remain in agricultural production and current yields can be maintained. ","A silvopasture proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by trees and climate change impacts.","Agricultural diffuse source","NE, Land Owners, LPAs",2,2,1,3,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring/biomass yield required to quantify N & P removal. ","Silvopasture schemes could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration and water purification benefits, medium levels of hazard reduction and biodiversity, and low levels of amenity benefit. ","Silvopasture schemes can only be deployed where agricultural practices are present. The slope and soil type should be considered to optimise the benefits of nutrient removal. Careful consideration must also be given to the combination of species as sheep, for example, have bark stripping tendencies."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$10,Inputs!N$11,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(NOT(Inputs!N$17),Inputs!Q$16))","v":true},12,"Urban areas, New development sites","Permanent","Onsite","Water efficiency","Water used in homes",1,1,1,3,1,1,2,"< 1 yr","From identifying water efficiency measures as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  ","Water efficiency measures only require purchase and installation of fixtures and fittings, with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to choice of fixtures and fittings, access to properties for retrofitting.","Water efficiencies measures require minimal intervention post-installation, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. ","Lack of design requirement and ease of implementation means that water efficiency is ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering scenarios evidenced in literature and practical examples of deployment, the likely removal capacity of water efficiency schemes for both N and P is low relative to other mitigation options. There are issues surrounding the scale at which measures are implemented.","Water efficiency measures reduce the amount of water entering the sewer system, which in turn reduces the amount of nutrient rich sewage discharge from a treatment works.","Low. Implementing water efficiency measures does not require any additional land take. ","Water efficiency proposals may need to consider: future changes to WwTWs nutrient removal permits. ","Urban areas, New development sites","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, LPAs",2,2,2,1,1,"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the water efficiency measures cannot be undone. ","Water efficiency could deliver medium levels of hazard reduction, biodiversity, and amenity benefit through reduced abstraction. Water efficiency measures are likely to deliver low levels of water purification and carbon sequestration benefits.","The main constraint for this type of scheme is securing the water efficiencies measures in perpetuity if using them as a long term solution."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$7,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},13,"Agricultural diffuse source","Permanent","Offsite","Silvo-arable","Agricultural diffuse water sources and fertiliser input",1,1,2,2,2,1,2,"1-3 yrs","From identifying silvo-arable schemes as a possible solution, it is likely they will take 1-3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a  scheme. It may take longer than this to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  ","Silvo-arable schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Silvo-arable schemes require harvesting and vegetation management additional to current agricultural operations, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. ","Simple design and implementation on already owned land means that silvo-arable schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in silvo-arable farming, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is low. There is little evidence for high nutrient removal from these schemes.","Silvo-arable is a farming system where trees are incorporated within arable production. It increases the benefits from natural biological processes within a farmed landscape, including nutrient retention from agricultural sources. ","High. Silvo-arable farming requires a significant area of arable land for tree planting, however the area will remain in agricultural production and current yields can be maintained. ","A silvo-arable proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by trees and climate change impacts.","Agricultural diffuse source","NE, Land Owners, LPAs",2,2,1,3,3,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring/biomass yield required to quantify N & P removal. ","Silvo-arable schemes could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration and water purification benefits, medium levels of hazard reduction and biodiversity, and low levels of amenity benefit. ","Implementation only possible on agricultural land; species considerations as some trees will be leafless for most of the year which reduces the scheme's nutrient removal potential; further species considerations as some species harbour pests and diseases which could affect adjacent species."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$6,Inputs!N$7,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},14,"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source","Permanent","Offsite","Ag. land out of production","Fertiliser input",3,3,1,3,1,1,3,"< 1 yr","From identifying that taking agricultural land out of production is a possible solution, it is likely that the scheme will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  ","Taking agricultural land out of production schemes have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to current nutrient input to agricultural land, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, post-implementation land use.","Taking agricultural land out of production can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. ","Taking agricultural land out of production has a low cost of implementation as there are minimal costs associated with converting the land back to a semi-natural state due to low design requirements, for example.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients when taking agricultural land out of production, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes is high for both N and P. ","Taking agricultural land out of production permanently returns agricultural land to a semi-natural state. This removes agricultural nutrient pollution.  ","High. Taking agricultural land out of production requires large areas of land to be returned to a semi-natural state to deliver significant nutrient mitigation, especially for phosphorus.","Taking agricultural land out of production may need to consider: the impact of \"legacy\" nutrient in the soils.","Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source","NE, Land Owners, LPAs",3,2,2,3,3,"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the land will remain in a semi-natural state in perpetuity.","Taking agricultural land out of production could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, water purification and biodiversity benefits, and medium levels of hazard reduction and amenity benefit. ","Deployment location is limited to sites of current agricultural land; huge land take required for benefits to be achieved, especially for P; landowner agreements"]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$9,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},15,"Aquaculture","Permanent","Offsite","Aquaculture offsetting","Fish food and fish excretion",3,3,1,2,1,2,2,"< 1 yr","From identifying aquacultural offsetting as a potential solution, it is likely that the scheme will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  ","Aquacultural offsetting schemes require a decommissioning plan and changes to abstraction and discharge licences, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to inflow hydrology and nutrient concentrations, post-implementation land use, decommissioning processes.","Aquacultural offsetting can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. ","The purchase of an operating business means aquacultural offsetting has medium cost relative to other mitigation options.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in aquacultural offsetting, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is high. The load removed, however, is highly dependent on abstraction and discharge rates. ","Aquacultural offsetting permanently removes an aquaculture operation and the associated nutrient pollution from activities like fish farming. The river reach is returned to a semi-natural state, as it likely would have been prior to the commencement of fish farming, for example. ","Low to medium. Aquacultural operations do not require large land areas but larger farms will likely deliver more mitigation.  ","An aquaculture offsetting proposal may need to consider: future management and / or revoking of abstraction licenses. ","Aquaculture","NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs",2,1,3,2,2,"Measure is certain on implementation following analysis of upstream and downstream concentration and discharge data prior to implementation.","Aquaculture offsetting could also deliver a high level of amenity benefit, medium levels of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water purification, and low levels of hazard reduction. ","Aquaculture schemes are limited to sites where aquaculture exists. They require high effluent concentrations and volumes to be viable for offsetting. Hence, it can be difficult to find a viable scheme as many aquaculture practices act as N and P sinks. The schemes are also subject to the landowner's permission. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$10,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$16,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},16,"New development sites","Permanent","Onsite","Private Chemical PTPs","Sewage/wastewater",3,3,3,2,2,2,1,"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs","From identifying private chemical PTPs as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between <1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP.","Chemical PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Chemical PTPs require regular additions of chemicals to maintain nutrient removal, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements which can be difficult to ensure will sufficient certainty will take place. ","Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means chemical PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. ","The likely removal capacity of chemical PTPs is high for P whilst N will typically have been removed prior to dosing. Chemical PTPs are generally targeted at reducing P outputs, not N, though their nutrient removal capacity is highly dependent upon the specifications of the chosen PTP.","PTPs are small sewage treatment facilities used to treat wastewater from properties which cannot connect to a mains sewer. Chemical PTPs treat wastewater using chemical dosing to promote nutrient removal. It is worth noting that chemical and biological PTPs can be combined to increase nutrient removal. ","Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment.","If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes","New development sites","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs",1,1,1,1,2,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring; can ensure correct dosing in perpetuity; no ecological impact; and no use of aluminium.","PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. ","Chemical PTPs recommended for P not N, should only be used where not reasonable for dev to connect to mains sewers, limitations regarding size of development, no use of aluminium due to ecological impact, and if using other chemicals correct dosing at all times required with no ecological impact."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$10,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$16,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},17,"New development sites","Permanent","Onsite","Private Biological PTPs","Sewage/wastewater",3,2,3,2,2,2,1,"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs","From identifying private biological PTPs as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between <1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP.","Biological PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","Biological PTPs require regular checks and sampling to ensure they continuing to meet nutrient removal standards, as well as ensuring that the householder does not use chemicals/detergents which will negatively affect the treatment process, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. ","Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means biological PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. ","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in biological PTPs, the likely removal capacity of these schemes is high for N and low for P. Biological PTPs have nutrient removal technologies to reduce nutrient outputs in sewage. ","PTPs are small sewage treatment facilities used to treat wastewater from properties which cannot connect to a mains sewer. Biological PTPs treat wastewater by promoting biological processes to remove nutrients. It is worth noting that chemical and biological PTPs can be combined to increase nutrient removal.","Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment.","If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes","New development sites","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs",1,1,1,1,2,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan, including need to ensure that household chemicals/detergents are not used which would negatively impact treatment efficiency. ","PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. ","PTPs should only be used where it is not reasonable for development to connect to a public foul sewer. They must also be able to connect to an electricity supply. "]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N10,Inputs!N$11,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},18,"Wastewater treatment works, Urban areas, New development sites","Permanent","Offsite","Private ST | PTP Upgrades","Sewage/wastewater",3,3,3,2,2,2,1,"3+ yrs","From identifying private ST / PTP upgrades as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take 3+ years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme. Once a scheme is operational, credits can be awarded.","PTP / ST upgrades require significant engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, final effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, environmental permitting.","PTP / ST upgrades require significant operational management and maintenance, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. See private biological and chemical PTPs for more details.","PTP / ST upgrades are significant capital infrastructure projects with a medium cost relative to other mitigation options.","As PTP / ST upgrades are designed to strip nutrients from sewage, the removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is likely to be high. This, however, is dependent upon the technology used for the upgrades - see private biological and chemical PTPs for more details.","PTP / ST upgrades can either install new nutrient removal technology or improve existing nutrient removal technology at an existing PTP / ST. ","Low. PTP / ST upgrades can generally be delivered on relatively small land area, often within the boundary of treatment works.","If using a drainage field, an upgrade proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes","Urban areas","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs",1,1,1,1,2,"Maintenance plan. Credits can be calculated upfront but maintenance required to ensure efficacy in perpetuity. See private and chemical PTPs for more details. ","PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits.","PTPs or septic tanks that discharge to ground should only be replaced by units that also discharge to ground, where ground conditions are appropriate for drainage. PTPs/ST which meet the P thresholds for small scale discharges may not be used to generate credits. No use of aluminium due to ecological impact"]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$10,Inputs!N$13,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$16,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},{"$f":"B21+IF(A22,1,0)","v":19},"New development sites","Permanent","Onsite","PTPs managed by NAV","Sewage/wastewater",3,3,3,2,2,2,1,"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs","From identifying PTPs managed by an OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker or by a Local Authority-assured competent operator, it is likely that the scheme will take between< 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP.","PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions.","PTPs require regular checks and sampling to ensure they continuing to meet nutrient removal standards, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. They may also require regular additions of chemicals to maintain nutrient removal.","Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. ","Considering the processes that remove nutrients in PTPs, the likely removal capacity of these schemes is high for both N and P. PTPs have nutrient removal technologies to reduce nutrient outputs in sewage. ","In both sewered and unsewered areas, developments may be able to provide private wastewater treatment facilities which operate at a higher efficiency than the main WwTW. The private facility must be managed by a New Appointments and Variations (NAV) i.e OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker or managed by a Local Authority-assured competent operator.","Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment.","If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes","New development sites","NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs",1,1,1,1,2,"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan.","PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. ","Can be used is sewered areas as long as the facility is adopted and managed by an OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker, or managed by a Local Authority-assured competent operator. The permit limit for such facilities will need to be agreed with the EA. No use of aluminium due to ecological impact."]
[{"$f":"AND(\nOR(Inputs!N$6,Inputs!N$7,NOT(Inputs!Q$6)),\nOR(Inputs!N$17,NOT(Inputs!Q$16)))","v":true},20,"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source","Permanent","Offsite","Farmyard | barn removal","Agricultural diffuse or point sources",1,1,1,3,1,1,1,"< 1 yr","From identifying farmyard / barn removal as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take <  1 yr years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme. Once a scheme is operational, credits can be awarded.","The process of removing farmyards / barns will have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to current nutrient input to agricultural land, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, post-implementation land use.","Removing farmyards / barns can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements once the site has been appropriately restored. ","Removing farmyards / barns has a low cost of implementation as there are minimal costs associated with converting the land back to a semi-natural state due to the low design requirements, for example.","Considering the processes that remove nutrients when removing farmyard, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes is low for N and low for P. ","Permanent farmyard / barn removal removes a discharge of nutrients to ground and surface water in uncovered areas that are regularly used by livestock. The scheme requires the farmyard to be demolished and the site to be appropriately restored (or converted or rebuilt into residential housing).","Low. Farmyard / barn removal requires a small amount of land for deployment.","Farmyard / barn removal may need to consider the impact of legacy nutrients in the soil, the geology of the site with reference to lag times, and climate change impacts on surface water runoff volumes. ","Agricultural Diffuse Source","NE, Land Owners, EA",1,2,1,1,1,"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the land will remain in a semi-natural state in perpetuity.","Farmyard / barn removal could also deliver medium levels of hazard reduction benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, water purification and biodiversity benefits. ","Farmyards on chalk where significant delays are expected before the affected watercourse benefitted are not acceptable. The farmyard must currently be legally compliant; this will require an independent agricultural consultant appraisal or confirmation from the EA."]

{"sheet":"Treatment wetland","index":5,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Treatment wetland",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Treatment wetlands are either natural or constructed systems managed in a specific manner to treat a source of water through a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes.  They have a fixed or closed water source, the likely inflow rates rate, variability of water quality and hydraulic retention time can be well defined and there is a low risk of uncontrolled water levels. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low to medium. Depends on flow rate and concentration of nutrients in water entering the wetland. Lower N and P concentrations and/or higher flow rates = larger wetlands needed."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Must be a treatment wetland with influent P concs > 0.1 mg/l and N concs > 4 - 5 mg/l to gain credits upfront."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A treatment wetland proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient concentrations, long-term changes in inflow rates, climate change impacts on wetland efficacy."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in treatment wetlands, the likely removal capacity of point source wetlands for both N and P is medium. This assumes a consistent inflow of nutrient enriched water. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"If at a WwTW consider any planned permit upgrades. May be permitting constraints in catchments of rivers with water availability issues. Wetlands should not be deployed on a pre-existing wetland habitat, should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying treatment wetlands as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take between 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. However, evidencing the full effectiveness of nutrient removal may take longer than 1-3 years."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Treatment wetland schemes require engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to hydraulic performance, wetland design, site condition (soils, topography, geology etc), flood risk and environmental permitting."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Treatment wetlands require vegetation management and periodic sediment removal to prevent remobilisation of nutrients, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"The design and construction requirements of treatment wetlands means that these schemes are ranked as high cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"A well-designed treatment wetland could also deliver a high level of water purification benefits, medium levels of biodiversity, hazard reduction and amenity benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":57}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":4},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source, Flowing waterbodies (lotic), Aquaculture, Urban Areas, Wastewater treatment works, Other industrial/urban point sources, New Development Sites"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying treatment wetlands as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take between 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. However, evidencing the full effectiveness of nutrient removal may take longer than 1-3 years."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment wetland schemes require engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to hydraulic performance, wetland design, site condition (soils, topography, geology etc), flood risk and environmental permitting."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment wetlands require vegetation management and periodic sediment removal to prevent remobilisation of nutrients, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The design and construction requirements of treatment wetlands means that these schemes are ranked as high cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in treatment wetlands, the likely removal capacity of point source wetlands for both N and P is medium. This assumes a consistent inflow of nutrient enriched water. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment wetlands are either natural or constructed systems managed in a specific manner to treat a source of water through a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes.  They have a fixed or closed water source, the likely inflow rates rate, variability of water quality and hydraulic retention time can be well defined and there is a low risk of uncontrolled water levels. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low to medium. Depends on flow rate and concentration of nutrients in water entering the wetland. Lower N and P concentrations and/or higher flow rates = larger wetlands needed."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A treatment wetland proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient concentrations, long-term changes in inflow rates, climate change impacts on wetland efficacy."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source, Flowing waterbodies (lotic), Aquaculture, Urban Areas, Wastewater treatment works, Other industrial/urban point sources, New Development Sites"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs, Water Companies"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Must be a treatment wetland with influent P concs > 0.1 mg/l and N concs > 4 - 5 mg/l to gain credits upfront."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A well-designed treatment wetland could also deliver a high level of water purification benefits, medium levels of biodiversity, hazard reduction and amenity benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration."}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"If at a WwTW consider any planned permit upgrades. May be permitting constraints in catchments of rivers with water availability issues. Wetlands should not be deployed on a pre-existing wetland habitat, should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]

{"sheet":"Not treatment wetland","index":6,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Not treatment wetland",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Not treatment wetlands differ from treatment wetlands as their hydrology is more dynamic and the ability to manage and control water inflows and water levels is considerably more challenging. However, these wetlands can all be designed, created or restored as part of an overall strategy for managing nutrients in the aquatic environment."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"A scalable solution. Size and land take will depend on amount of runoff enter the wetland. Can be deployed with minimal land take. "}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan required to claim credits upfront. Monitoring required for credit generation."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A wetland proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient concentrations, long-term changes in inflow rates, and climate change impacts on wetland efficacy. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the nutrient removal processes, the likely efficacy of these wetlands for both N and P is medium. Moderate N and P concentrations in agricultural runoff supports medium nutrient removal potential.  "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"May be permitting constraints in catchments of rivers with water availability issues. Possible increased flood risk if infrastructure or agricultural land is nearby. It should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying these wetlands as a possible solution, with a robust design and well characterised influent nutrient loads it is likely that they will take 1 - 3 years to start removing nutrients. Due to the difficulty of characterising flows and loads, post-implementation monitoring is required to calculate credits, however evidencing the full nutrient removal potential may take longer than 1-3 years."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Not treatment wetland schemes require engineering design and construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"These wetlands require periodic sediment removal to prevent remobilisation of nutrients and wetland infilling, as well as vegetation management where applicable, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Simple design and construction, and low land take for not treatment wetlands means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"A well-designed not treatment wetland could also deliver a high level of water purification benefits, medium levels of biodiversity and hazard reduction and low levels of carbon sequestration and amenity benefits."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":5},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying these wetlands as a possible solution, with a robust design and well characterised influent nutrient loads it is likely that they will take 1 - 3 years to start removing nutrients. Due to the difficulty of characterising flows and loads, post-implementation monitoring is required to calculate credits, however evidencing the full nutrient removal potential may take longer than 1-3 years."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Not treatment wetland schemes require engineering design and construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"These wetlands require periodic sediment removal to prevent remobilisation of nutrients and wetland infilling, as well as vegetation management where applicable, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Simple design and construction, and low land take for not treatment wetlands means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the nutrient removal processes, the likely efficacy of these wetlands for both N and P is medium. Moderate N and P concentrations in agricultural runoff supports medium nutrient removal potential.  "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Not treatment wetlands differ from treatment wetlands as their hydrology is more dynamic and the ability to manage and control water inflows and water levels is considerably more challenging. However, these wetlands can all be designed, created or restored as part of an overall strategy for managing nutrients in the aquatic environment."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A scalable solution. Size and land take will depend on amount of runoff enter the wetland. Can be deployed with minimal land take. "}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A wetland proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient concentrations, long-term changes in inflow rates, and climate change impacts on wetland efficacy. "}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan required to claim credits upfront. Monitoring required for credit generation."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A well-designed not treatment wetland could also deliver a high level of water purification benefits, medium levels of biodiversity and hazard reduction and low levels of carbon sequestration and amenity benefits."}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"May be permitting constraints in catchments of rivers with water availability issues. Possible increased flood risk if infrastructure or agricultural land is nearby. It should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives."}]

{"sheet":"Riparian Buffer Strips","index":7,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Riparian Buffer Strips",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"A riparian buffer strip is a vegetated area along the banks of a flowing waterbody, which for nutrient neutrality purposes includes trees. It filters nutrient pollution from adjacent land uses. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Variable land take. Generally, larger schemes = greater nutrient removal potential. Buffers should be minimum 10m width and wider where there are converging flows/increased loads."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits for N and P upfront. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A riparian buffer proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal efficacy, long-term erosion risks."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in riparian buffers, the likely percentage removal capacity of riparian buffers for both N and P is medium. Moderate N and P concentrations in agricultural runoff supports medium nutrient removal potential.  "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Landowner agreement, 10m minimum width, water needs to flow through the buffer and not bypass it. The soil type should not compromise the efficacy of the buffer. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying riparian buffer strips as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a buffer strip. It may take longer than 1 year to evidence the full effectiveness of buffer strips for nutrient removal.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Riparian buffer schemes have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, influent flow rate and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Riparian buffers will require periodic vegetation maintenance and potentially fencing maintenance, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"The design and implementation costs regarding tree planting, and low land take for riparian buffers means that these schemes are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"A well-designed buffer strip could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, water purification, and biodiversity benefits as well as medium levels of hazard reduction, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":6},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying riparian buffer strips as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a buffer strip. It may take longer than 1 year to evidence the full effectiveness of buffer strips for nutrient removal.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Riparian buffer schemes have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, influent flow rate and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Riparian buffers will require periodic vegetation maintenance and potentially fencing maintenance, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The design and implementation costs regarding tree planting, and low land take for riparian buffers means that these schemes are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in riparian buffers, the likely percentage removal capacity of riparian buffers for both N and P is medium. Moderate N and P concentrations in agricultural runoff supports medium nutrient removal potential.  "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A riparian buffer strip is a vegetated area along the banks of a flowing waterbody, which for nutrient neutrality purposes includes trees. It filters nutrient pollution from adjacent land uses. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Variable land take. Generally, larger schemes = greater nutrient removal potential. Buffers should be minimum 10m width and wider where there are converging flows/increased loads."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A riparian buffer proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal efficacy, long-term erosion risks."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits for N and P upfront. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A well-designed buffer strip could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, water purification, and biodiversity benefits as well as medium levels of hazard reduction, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Landowner agreement, 10m minimum width, water needs to flow through the buffer and not bypass it. The soil type should not compromise the efficacy of the buffer. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]

{"sheet":"Channel re-naturalisation","index":8,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Channel re-naturalisation",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"River channel re-naturalisation seeks to reinstate natural processes to anthropogenically modified river channels, and in turn promotes natural nutrient removal processes."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low to medium. Re-naturalisation can take place entirely within the existing footprint of a river channel. Larger schemes involving floodplain reconnection will require more land."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N & P removal. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A channel re-naturalisation proposal may need to consider: long-term changes to nutrient concentrations and river flows, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in re-naturalised channels, the likely removal capacity is medium for N and low for P. However, N and P removal processes combined with the concentrations in watercourses are often insufficient for large amounts of nutrient removal to take place.  "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Sufficient influent nutrient concentrations as well as hyporheic exchange capacity within benthic, riparian, and floodplain soils. Flood risk to nearby infrastructure if a scheme involves re-connecting to floodplains. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying river channel re-naturalisation as a possible solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between 1 and 3+ years to start removing nutrients. Credits for N can be claimed upfront but monitoring is required to evidence P removal, therefore quantifying P credits will take longer. Regardless, it may take longer than 3 years to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Channel re-naturalisation schemes require engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, stream hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, environmental permitting, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Channel re-naturalisation schemes should self-regulate if well designed, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"The design and construction of channel re-naturalisation schemes means that these schemes are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Well-designed channel re-naturalisation schemes could also deliver higher levels of biodiversity, hazard reduction and water purification benefits and amenity benefit, and medium levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":1}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":7},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Flowing waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"1-3 yrs; 3+ yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying river channel re-naturalisation as a possible solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between 1 and 3+ years to start removing nutrients. Credits for N can be claimed upfront but monitoring is required to evidence P removal, therefore quantifying P credits will take longer. Regardless, it may take longer than 3 years to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Channel re-naturalisation schemes require engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, stream hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, environmental permitting, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Channel re-naturalisation schemes should self-regulate if well designed, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The design and construction of channel re-naturalisation schemes means that these schemes are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in re-naturalised channels, the likely removal capacity is medium for N and low for P. However, N and P removal processes combined with the concentrations in watercourses are often insufficient for large amounts of nutrient removal to take place.  "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"River channel re-naturalisation seeks to reinstate natural processes to anthropogenically modified river channels, and in turn promotes natural nutrient removal processes."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low to medium. Re-naturalisation can take place entirely within the existing footprint of a river channel. Larger schemes involving floodplain reconnection will require more land."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A channel re-naturalisation proposal may need to consider: long-term changes to nutrient concentrations and river flows, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Flowing waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N & P removal. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Well-designed channel re-naturalisation schemes could also deliver higher levels of biodiversity, hazard reduction and water purification benefits and amenity benefit, and medium levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Sufficient influent nutrient concentrations as well as hyporheic exchange capacity within benthic, riparian, and floodplain soils. Flood risk to nearby infrastructure if a scheme involves re-connecting to floodplains. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]

{"sheet":"Engineered logjams","index":9,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Engineered logjams",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Engineered logjams reduce flow velocities and trap sediments and nutrients through the temporary storage of water within the stream channel. They mimic the processes caused by beaver dams."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low to medium. Small engineered logjams require an allowance for some land around a river channel to be flooded. The larger the scheme, the greater the allowance for flooding."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N removal. Not valid for P due to the temporary P removal processes."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"An engineered logjam proposal may need to consider: long-term changes to nutrient concentrations and river flows, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"The likely removal capacity of engineered logjams for N is medium, due to the ability to trap sediment and promote various nutrient removal processes. These schemes cannot be implemented to gain P credits due to the temporary nature of the P removal processes."}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Flood risk to nearby infrastructure and agricultural land. It is recommended that narrower rivers (<2m) are more likely to be well suited to engineered logjams. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying engineered logjams as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a  scheme. It may take longer than 1 year to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Engineered logjams require some hydraulic design and may need construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, channel hydraulics/hydrology and nutrient concentrations, local geology and soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Engineered logjam schemes should largely self-regulate if well designed and require periodic visual inspection and maintenance, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Simple design and implementation, and low land take for engineered logjams means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"A well-designed engineered logjam could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction, medium levels of amenity benefit, water purification and biodiversity, and low levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":1}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":8},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Flowing waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying engineered logjams as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a  scheme. It may take longer than 1 year to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Engineered logjams require some hydraulic design and may need construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, channel hydraulics/hydrology and nutrient concentrations, local geology and soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Engineered logjam schemes should largely self-regulate if well designed and require periodic visual inspection and maintenance, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Simple design and implementation, and low land take for engineered logjams means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The likely removal capacity of engineered logjams for N is medium, due to the ability to trap sediment and promote various nutrient removal processes. These schemes cannot be implemented to gain P credits due to the temporary nature of the P removal processes."}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Engineered logjams reduce flow velocities and trap sediments and nutrients through the temporary storage of water within the stream channel. They mimic the processes caused by beaver dams."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low to medium. Small engineered logjams require an allowance for some land around a river channel to be flooded. The larger the scheme, the greater the allowance for flooding."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"An engineered logjam proposal may need to consider: long-term changes to nutrient concentrations and river flows, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Flowing waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N removal. Not valid for P due to the temporary P removal processes."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A well-designed engineered logjam could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction, medium levels of amenity benefit, water purification and biodiversity, and low levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Flood risk to nearby infrastructure and agricultural land. It is recommended that narrower rivers (<2m) are more likely to be well suited to engineered logjams. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]

{"sheet":"Silt traps","index":10,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Silt traps",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Silt traps intercept runoff in the landscape or flow in a river, slowing the flow so that suspended sediments and nutrients are trapped and can be removed. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. Silt traps require little land to be deployed in the terrestrial landscape and no land if being deployed in a fluvial environment. "}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Need pre and post-implementation monitoring outputs to gain credits."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A silt trap proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient loads."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"The likely removal capacity of silt traps for P is medium due to the ability to trap considerable quantities of sediment and organic material.  For N, however, the likely removal potential is low as the scheme focusses on deposition and N is much less readily bound to sediments than P."}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Silt traps should not be built in areas of high velocities which are likely to cause damage and impact nutrient removal via remobilisation of sediments. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying silt traps as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1yr - 3 years to start removing nutrients, including time required to design and implement a scheme. However, robust monitoring is required to evidence nutrient removal, therefore quantifying credits will take longer. Regardless, it may take longer than that to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Silt traps have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, local landcover."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Silt traps require regular sediment removal and disposal for them to continue functioning, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. Consideration as to where the waste will be disposed and that it won't increase nutrients to the site.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Simple design and implementation, and low land take for silt traps means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"A silt trap could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration, amenity, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":9},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying silt traps as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1yr - 3 years to start removing nutrients, including time required to design and implement a scheme. However, robust monitoring is required to evidence nutrient removal, therefore quantifying credits will take longer. Regardless, it may take longer than that to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silt traps have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, local landcover."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silt traps require regular sediment removal and disposal for them to continue functioning, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. Consideration as to where the waste will be disposed and that it won't increase nutrients to the site.  "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Simple design and implementation, and low land take for silt traps means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The likely removal capacity of silt traps for P is medium due to the ability to trap considerable quantities of sediment and organic material.  For N, however, the likely removal potential is low as the scheme focusses on deposition and N is much less readily bound to sediments than P."}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silt traps intercept runoff in the landscape or flow in a river, slowing the flow so that suspended sediments and nutrients are trapped and can be removed. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. Silt traps require little land to be deployed in the terrestrial landscape and no land if being deployed in a fluvial environment. "}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A silt trap proposal may need to consider: long-term changes in influent nutrient loads."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, LPAs, EA"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Need pre and post-implementation monitoring outputs to gain credits."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A silt trap could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration, amenity, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silt traps should not be built in areas of high velocities which are likely to cause damage and impact nutrient removal via remobilisation of sediments. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]

{"sheet":"PTP | ST Orchards","index":11,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"PTP | ST Orchards",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Orchards planted where small PTPs or septic tanks discharge to the ground act as a mitigation solution through harvesting as nutrients are removed from the system via plant matter and yields."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Medium to High. Orchards require land with a nutrient source such as a septic tank or PTP. The system is scalable, delivering more mitigation from larger schemes. "}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Quantify N & P removal based on yield. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"An orchard proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by the trees."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"The likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is medium. The actual nutrient removal is highly dependent upon the location and input nutrient sources. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"These schemes should only be located in areas with verifiably high influent nutrient concentrations otherwise they are unlikely to provide any benefit. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying orchards schemes at PTP discharge sites as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take between 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement the scheme. It may take longer than 3 years to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Orchard schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Orchard schemes require regular harvesting and vegetation management, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Simple design and implementation means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"An orchard scheme could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, medium levels of water purification and hazard reduction, and low levels of amenity benefit and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":10},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural diffuse source, New development sites"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying orchards schemes at PTP discharge sites as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take between 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement the scheme. It may take longer than 3 years to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Orchard schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Orchard schemes require regular harvesting and vegetation management, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Simple design and implementation means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is medium. The actual nutrient removal is highly dependent upon the location and input nutrient sources. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Orchards planted where small PTPs or septic tanks discharge to the ground act as a mitigation solution through harvesting as nutrients are removed from the system via plant matter and yields."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Medium to High. Orchards require land with a nutrient source such as a septic tank or PTP. The system is scalable, delivering more mitigation from larger schemes. "}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"An orchard proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by the trees."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural diffuse source, New development sites"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, LPAs, EA"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Quantify N & P removal based on yield. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"An orchard scheme could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, medium levels of water purification and hazard reduction, and low levels of amenity benefit and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"These schemes should only be located in areas with verifiably high influent nutrient concentrations otherwise they are unlikely to provide any benefit. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]

{"sheet":"Drainage ditch blocking","index":12,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Drainage ditch blocking",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Drainage ditches are blocked, trapping agricultural runoff in the ditch, increasing water table heights and promoting various nutrient immobilisation and cycling processes that remove nutrients. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. Drainage ditch blocking schemes require a relatively small allowance for some land around a ditch to be inundated."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N & P removal. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A drainage ditch blocking proposal may need to consider: long-term changes influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in ditch blocking schemes, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is medium, due to the ability to trap sediment and promote various nutrient removal processes.  "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Water must flow through the scheme and not bypass via it groundwater. Flooding impacts should be considered, especially where the land is agricultural or infrastructure is nearby. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying drainage ditch blocking schemes as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1yr to 3 years to start removing nutrients, including time required to design and implement a scheme. Credits can be claimed for N and P upfront. Regardless, it may take longer than this year to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Drainage ditch blocking schemes require ditch block design and may need construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Drainage ditch blocking schemes should largely self-regulate if well designed, requiring periodic visual inspection and maintenance, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. Depending on the location, desilting might be required. If the surrounding land is in agricultural production this will be important to prevent lateral inundation. Where surrounding land is no longer farmed, however, this might not be necessary."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Simple design and implementation, and low land take for ditch blocking means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"A well-designed ditch blocking scheme could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction (subject to location), medium levels of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water purification, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":11},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying drainage ditch blocking schemes as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1yr to 3 years to start removing nutrients, including time required to design and implement a scheme. Credits can be claimed for N and P upfront. Regardless, it may take longer than this year to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Drainage ditch blocking schemes require ditch block design and may need construction management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Drainage ditch blocking schemes should largely self-regulate if well designed, requiring periodic visual inspection and maintenance, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. Depending on the location, desilting might be required. If the surrounding land is in agricultural production this will be important to prevent lateral inundation. Where surrounding land is no longer farmed, however, this might not be necessary."}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Simple design and implementation, and low land take for ditch blocking means that these schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in ditch blocking schemes, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is medium, due to the ability to trap sediment and promote various nutrient removal processes.  "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Drainage ditches are blocked, trapping agricultural runoff in the ditch, increasing water table heights and promoting various nutrient immobilisation and cycling processes that remove nutrients. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. Drainage ditch blocking schemes require a relatively small allowance for some land around a ditch to be inundated."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A drainage ditch blocking proposal may need to consider: long-term changes influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, Env. NGOs, LPAs, EA"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring required to quantify N & P removal. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A well-designed ditch blocking scheme could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction (subject to location), medium levels of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water purification, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Water must flow through the scheme and not bypass via it groundwater. Flooding impacts should be considered, especially where the land is agricultural or infrastructure is nearby. They should not hinder the restoration of a protected site or achieving other environmental objectives. "}]

{"sheet":"100% infiltration SuDS","index":13,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"100% infiltration SuDS",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"100% infiltration SuDS provide drainage in urban environments, infiltrating runoff though subsoil and removing nutrients and other pollutants in the process."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. This type of SuDS is usually buried and does not require a lot of land."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"100% infiltration SuDS may need to consider: long-term changes to influent nutrient loads."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in 100% infiltration SuDS have a medium score for N removal capacity and a high score for P removal. The higher rating P is due to the tendency for P to bind to sediments more than N. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Consideration needs to be given to the local geology and possible presence of Source Protection Zones where the rules and requirements are likely to be more stringent. The benefits of freely draining soils which encourage infiltration and increase the likelihood of nutrient removal."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying 100% infiltration SuDS as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1 year to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme within a housing development. It may take longer to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"100% infiltration SuDS require engineering and hydraulic design, and construction management, thus scoring medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"100% infiltration SuDS require periodic inspection and maintenance to ensure drainage is not compromised, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Costs for consultancy, design and construction means that 100% infiltration SuDS are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options"}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"100% infiltration SuDS could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction and water purification, medium levels of amenity and biodiversity benefits, and low levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":12},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"New development sites, Urban areas"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying 100% infiltration SuDS as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take <1 year to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme within a housing development. It may take longer to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"100% infiltration SuDS require engineering and hydraulic design, and construction management, thus scoring medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"100% infiltration SuDS require periodic inspection and maintenance to ensure drainage is not compromised, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Costs for consultancy, design and construction means that 100% infiltration SuDS are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options"}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in 100% infiltration SuDS have a medium score for N removal capacity and a high score for P removal. The higher rating P is due to the tendency for P to bind to sediments more than N. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"100% infiltration SuDS provide drainage in urban environments, infiltrating runoff though subsoil and removing nutrients and other pollutants in the process."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. This type of SuDS is usually buried and does not require a lot of land."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"100% infiltration SuDS may need to consider: long-term changes to influent nutrient loads."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"New development sites, Urban areas"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, LPAs, EA"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"100% infiltration SuDS could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction and water purification, medium levels of amenity and biodiversity benefits, and low levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Consideration needs to be given to the local geology and possible presence of Source Protection Zones where the rules and requirements are likely to be more stringent. The benefits of freely draining soils which encourage infiltration and increase the likelihood of nutrient removal."}]

{"sheet":"Treatment train SuDS","index":14,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Treatment train SuDS",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Treatment train SuDS manage urban runoff, mimicking natural drainage processes in urban environment. The treatment train uses a sequence of SuDS features that can provide nutrient removal."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Treatment trains will require a small amount of land. Owing to land constraints, they are most likely to be implemented on new development sites however can be retrofitted to pre-existing developments."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"Treatment train SuDS may need to consider: long-term changes to influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in treatment train SuDS, the likely removal percentage removal capacity of these schemes is medium for N and high for P. The reduction is dependent upon the influent N and P concentrations and the design of the SuDS. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"There are constraints such as surrounding land-take and the benefits off freely draining soils which encourage infiltration will increase the likelihood of nutrient removal."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying treatment train SuDS as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 year to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme within a housing development. It may take longer to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Treatment train SuDS require engineering and hydraulic design, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Treatment train SuDS may require a mix of vegetation management, desilting, rubbish removal and drainage checks but at relatively low frequency, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"More extensive requirements for consultancy, design and construction means that treatment train SuDS are likely ranked as higher cost relative to other mitigation options although it will be dependent on the exact SuDS components used in any treatment train. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Treatment train SuDS could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction and water purification, medium levels of biodiversity and amenity benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":13},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"New development sites, Urban areas"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying treatment train SuDS as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 year to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme within a housing development. It may take longer to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment train SuDS require engineering and hydraulic design, and construction management, thus scoring low for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to catchment hydrology, inflow hydraulics and nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment train SuDS may require a mix of vegetation management, desilting, rubbish removal and drainage checks but at relatively low frequency, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"More extensive requirements for consultancy, design and construction means that treatment train SuDS are likely ranked as higher cost relative to other mitigation options although it will be dependent on the exact SuDS components used in any treatment train. "}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in treatment train SuDS, the likely removal percentage removal capacity of these schemes is medium for N and high for P. The reduction is dependent upon the influent N and P concentrations and the design of the SuDS. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment train SuDS manage urban runoff, mimicking natural drainage processes in urban environment. The treatment train uses a sequence of SuDS features that can provide nutrient removal."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment trains will require a small amount of land. Owing to land constraints, they are most likely to be implemented on new development sites however can be retrofitted to pre-existing developments."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment train SuDS may need to consider: long-term changes to influent nutrient loads, climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes. "}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"New development sites, Urban areas"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, LPAs, EA"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan to gain credits."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Treatment train SuDS could also deliver a high level of hazard reduction and water purification, medium levels of biodiversity and amenity benefit, and low levels of carbon sequestration. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"There are constraints such as surrounding land-take and the benefits off freely draining soils which encourage infiltration will increase the likelihood of nutrient removal."}]

{"sheet":"Silvopasture","index":15,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Silvopasture",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Silvopasture is a farming system where trees are incorporated within pastures used for livestock production. It increases the benefits from natural biological processes within a farmed landscape, including nutrient retention from agricultural sources. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"High. Silvopasture requires a significant area of pasture for tree planting, however the area will remain in agricultural production and current yields can be maintained. "}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring/biomass yield required to quantify N & P removal. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A silvopasture proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by trees and climate change impacts."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in silvopasture schemes, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is low. There is little evidence for high nutrient removal from these schemes."}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Silvopasture schemes can only be deployed where agricultural practices are present. The slope and soil type should be considered to optimise the benefits of nutrient removal. Careful consideration must also be given to the combination of species as sheep, for example, have bark stripping tendencies."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying silvopasture as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take 1-3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. It may take longer than this to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Silvopasture schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Silvopasture schemes require harvesting and vegetation management additional to current agricultural operations, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Simple design and implementation on already owned land means that silvopasture schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Silvopasture schemes could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration and water purification benefits, medium levels of hazard reduction and biodiversity, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":14},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying silvopasture as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take 1-3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. It may take longer than this to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvopasture schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvopasture schemes require harvesting and vegetation management additional to current agricultural operations, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Simple design and implementation on already owned land means that silvopasture schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in silvopasture schemes, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is low. There is little evidence for high nutrient removal from these schemes."}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvopasture is a farming system where trees are incorporated within pastures used for livestock production. It increases the benefits from natural biological processes within a farmed landscape, including nutrient retention from agricultural sources. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"High. Silvopasture requires a significant area of pasture for tree planting, however the area will remain in agricultural production and current yields can be maintained. "}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A silvopasture proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by trees and climate change impacts."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring/biomass yield required to quantify N & P removal. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvopasture schemes could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration and water purification benefits, medium levels of hazard reduction and biodiversity, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvopasture schemes can only be deployed where agricultural practices are present. The slope and soil type should be considered to optimise the benefits of nutrient removal. Careful consideration must also be given to the combination of species as sheep, for example, have bark stripping tendencies."}]

{"sheet":"Water efficiency","index":16,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[14,13,14,15],[15,3,15,5],[15,13,18,15],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[1,14,1,15],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[12,9,12,11],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[5,13,7,15],[8,9,8,11],[9,9,10,11],[9,13,9,15],[10,13,12,15],[12,3,12,7]]}
[]
[null,null,"Water efficiency",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Water efficiency measures reduce the amount of water entering the sewer system, which in turn reduces the amount of nutrient rich sewage discharge from a treatment works."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. Implementing water efficiency measures does not require any additional land take. "}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the water efficiency measures cannot be undone. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"Water efficiency proposals may need to consider: future changes to WwTWs nutrient removal permits. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering scenarios evidenced in literature and practical examples of deployment, the likely removal capacity of water efficiency schemes for both N and P is low relative to other mitigation options. There are issues surrounding the scale at which measures are implemented."}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"The main constraint for this type of scheme is securing the water efficiencies measures in perpetuity if using them as a long term solution."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying water efficiency measures as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Water efficiency measures only require purchase and installation of fixtures and fittings, with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to choice of fixtures and fittings, access to properties for retrofitting."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Water efficiencies measures require minimal intervention post-installation, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Lack of design requirement and ease of implementation means that water efficiency is ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Water efficiency could deliver medium levels of hazard reduction, biodiversity, and amenity benefit through reduced abstraction. Water efficiency measures are likely to deliver low levels of water purification and carbon sequestration benefits."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":15},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Urban areas, New development sites"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying water efficiency measures as a possible solution, it is likely that they will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Water efficiency measures only require purchase and installation of fixtures and fittings, with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to choice of fixtures and fittings, access to properties for retrofitting."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Water efficiencies measures require minimal intervention post-installation, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Lack of design requirement and ease of implementation means that water efficiency is ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering scenarios evidenced in literature and practical examples of deployment, the likely removal capacity of water efficiency schemes for both N and P is low relative to other mitigation options. There are issues surrounding the scale at which measures are implemented."}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Water efficiency measures reduce the amount of water entering the sewer system, which in turn reduces the amount of nutrient rich sewage discharge from a treatment works."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. Implementing water efficiency measures does not require any additional land take. "}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Water efficiency proposals may need to consider: future changes to WwTWs nutrient removal permits. "}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Urban areas, New development sites"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the water efficiency measures cannot be undone. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Water efficiency could deliver medium levels of hazard reduction, biodiversity, and amenity benefit through reduced abstraction. Water efficiency measures are likely to deliver low levels of water purification and carbon sequestration benefits."}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The main constraint for this type of scheme is securing the water efficiencies measures in perpetuity if using them as a long term solution."}]

{"sheet":"Silvo-arable","index":17,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Silvo-arable",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Silvo-arable is a farming system where trees are incorporated within arable production. It increases the benefits from natural biological processes within a farmed landscape, including nutrient retention from agricultural sources. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"High. Silvo-arable farming requires a significant area of arable land for tree planting, however the area will remain in agricultural production and current yields can be maintained. "}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring/biomass yield required to quantify N & P removal. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"A silvo-arable proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by trees and climate change impacts."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in silvo-arable farming, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is low. There is little evidence for high nutrient removal from these schemes."}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Implementation only possible on agricultural land; species considerations as some trees will be leafless for most of the year which reduces the scheme's nutrient removal potential; further species considerations as some species harbour pests and diseases which could affect adjacent species."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying silvo-arable schemes as a possible solution, it is likely they will take 1-3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a  scheme. It may take longer than this to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Silvo-arable schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Silvo-arable schemes require harvesting and vegetation management additional to current agricultural operations, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Simple design and implementation on already owned land means that silvo-arable schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Silvo-arable schemes could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration and water purification benefits, medium levels of hazard reduction and biodiversity, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":16},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying silvo-arable schemes as a possible solution, it is likely they will take 1-3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a  scheme. It may take longer than this to evidence the full effectiveness of the scheme for nutrient removal.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvo-arable schemes require a plan for tree planting and a programme of tree planting, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to nutrient sources for removal, catchment hydrology, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvo-arable schemes require harvesting and vegetation management additional to current agricultural operations, resulting in medium level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Simple design and implementation on already owned land means that silvo-arable schemes are ranked as low cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in silvo-arable farming, the likely removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is low. There is little evidence for high nutrient removal from these schemes."}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvo-arable is a farming system where trees are incorporated within arable production. It increases the benefits from natural biological processes within a farmed landscape, including nutrient retention from agricultural sources. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"High. Silvo-arable farming requires a significant area of arable land for tree planting, however the area will remain in agricultural production and current yields can be maintained. "}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"A silvo-arable proposal may need to consider: long-term inputs of the nutrients to the system, including the availability of \"legacy\" nutrients for removal by trees and climate change impacts."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan. Monitoring/biomass yield required to quantify N & P removal. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Silvo-arable schemes could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration and water purification benefits, medium levels of hazard reduction and biodiversity, and low levels of amenity benefit. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Implementation only possible on agricultural land; species considerations as some trees will be leafless for most of the year which reduces the scheme's nutrient removal potential; further species considerations as some species harbour pests and diseases which could affect adjacent species."}]

{"sheet":"Ag. land out of production","index":18,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Taking agricultural land out of production",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production permanently returns agricultural land to a semi-natural state. This removes agricultural nutrient pollution.  "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"High. Taking agricultural land out of production requires large areas of land to be returned to a semi-natural state to deliver significant nutrient mitigation, especially for phosphorus."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the land will remain in a semi-natural state in perpetuity."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production may need to consider: the impact of \"legacy\" nutrient in the soils."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients when taking agricultural land out of production, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes is high for both N and P. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Deployment location is limited to sites of current agricultural land; huge land take required for benefits to be achieved, especially for P; landowner agreements"}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying that taking agricultural land out of production is a possible solution, it is likely that the scheme will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production schemes have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to current nutrient input to agricultural land, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, post-implementation land use."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production has a low cost of implementation as there are minimal costs associated with converting the land back to a semi-natural state due to low design requirements, for example."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, water purification and biodiversity benefits, and medium levels of hazard reduction and amenity benefit. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(\"Ag. land out of production\",Lookups!F:F,0)","v":17},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying that taking agricultural land out of production is a possible solution, it is likely that the scheme will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production schemes have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to current nutrient input to agricultural land, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, post-implementation land use."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production has a low cost of implementation as there are minimal costs associated with converting the land back to a semi-natural state due to low design requirements, for example."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients when taking agricultural land out of production, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes is high for both N and P. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production permanently returns agricultural land to a semi-natural state. This removes agricultural nutrient pollution.  "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"High. Taking agricultural land out of production requires large areas of land to be returned to a semi-natural state to deliver significant nutrient mitigation, especially for phosphorus."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production may need to consider: the impact of \"legacy\" nutrient in the soils."}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural point source, Agricultural diffuse source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the land will remain in a semi-natural state in perpetuity."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Taking agricultural land out of production could also deliver a high level of carbon sequestration, water purification and biodiversity benefits, and medium levels of hazard reduction and amenity benefit. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Deployment location is limited to sites of current agricultural land; huge land take required for benefits to be achieved, especially for P; landowner agreements"}]

{"sheet":"Aquaculture offsetting","index":19,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Aquaculture offsetting",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Aquacultural offsetting permanently removes an aquaculture operation and the associated nutrient pollution from activities like fish farming. The river reach is returned to a semi-natural state, as it likely would have been prior to the commencement of fish farming, for example. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low to medium. Aquacultural operations do not require large land areas but larger farms will likely deliver more mitigation.  "}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Measure is certain on implementation following analysis of upstream and downstream concentration and discharge data prior to implementation."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"An aquaculture offsetting proposal may need to consider: future management and / or revoking of abstraction licenses. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in aquacultural offsetting, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is high. The load removed, however, is highly dependent on abstraction and discharge rates. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Aquaculture schemes are limited to sites where aquaculture exists. They require high effluent concentrations and volumes to be viable for offsetting. Hence, it can be difficult to find a viable scheme as many aquaculture practices act as N and P sinks. The schemes are also subject to the landowner's permission. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying aquacultural offsetting as a potential solution, it is likely that the scheme will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Aquacultural offsetting schemes require a decommissioning plan and changes to abstraction and discharge licences, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to inflow hydrology and nutrient concentrations, post-implementation land use, decommissioning processes."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Aquacultural offsetting can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"The purchase of an operating business means aquacultural offsetting has medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Aquaculture offsetting could also deliver a high level of amenity benefit, medium levels of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water purification, and low levels of hazard reduction. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":18},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Aquaculture"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying aquacultural offsetting as a potential solution, it is likely that the scheme will take < 1 yr to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design and implement a scheme. Evidence of effectiveness for nutrient removal can be shown once a scheme is operational.  "}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Aquacultural offsetting schemes require a decommissioning plan and changes to abstraction and discharge licences, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to inflow hydrology and nutrient concentrations, post-implementation land use, decommissioning processes."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Aquacultural offsetting can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The purchase of an operating business means aquacultural offsetting has medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in aquacultural offsetting, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is high. The load removed, however, is highly dependent on abstraction and discharge rates. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Aquacultural offsetting permanently removes an aquaculture operation and the associated nutrient pollution from activities like fish farming. The river reach is returned to a semi-natural state, as it likely would have been prior to the commencement of fish farming, for example. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low to medium. Aquacultural operations do not require large land areas but larger farms will likely deliver more mitigation.  "}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"An aquaculture offsetting proposal may need to consider: future management and / or revoking of abstraction licenses. "}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Aquaculture"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, EA, Env. NGOs, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Measure is certain on implementation following analysis of upstream and downstream concentration and discharge data prior to implementation."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Aquaculture offsetting could also deliver a high level of amenity benefit, medium levels of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water purification, and low levels of hazard reduction. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Aquaculture schemes are limited to sites where aquaculture exists. They require high effluent concentrations and volumes to be viable for offsetting. Hence, it can be difficult to find a viable scheme as many aquaculture practices act as N and P sinks. The schemes are also subject to the landowner's permission. "}]

{"sheet":"Private Chemical PTPs","index":20,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Private Chemical PTPs",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"PTPs are small sewage treatment facilities used to treat wastewater from properties which cannot connect to a mains sewer. Chemical PTPs treat wastewater using chemical dosing to promote nutrient removal. It is worth noting that chemical and biological PTPs can be combined to increase nutrient removal. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring; can ensure correct dosing in perpetuity; no ecological impact; and no use of aluminium."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"The likely removal capacity of chemical PTPs is high for P whilst N will typically have been removed prior to dosing. Chemical PTPs are generally targeted at reducing P outputs, not N, though their nutrient removal capacity is highly dependent upon the specifications of the chosen PTP."}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Chemical PTPs recommended for P not N, should only be used where not reasonable for dev to connect to mains sewers, limitations regarding size of development, no use of aluminium due to ecological impact, and if using other chemicals correct dosing at all times required with no ecological impact."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying private chemical PTPs as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between <1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Chemical PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Chemical PTPs require regular additions of chemicals to maintain nutrient removal, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements which can be difficult to ensure will sufficient certainty will take place. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means chemical PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":19},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"New development sites"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying private chemical PTPs as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between <1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Chemical PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Chemical PTPs require regular additions of chemicals to maintain nutrient removal, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements which can be difficult to ensure will sufficient certainty will take place. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means chemical PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. "}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The likely removal capacity of chemical PTPs is high for P whilst N will typically have been removed prior to dosing. Chemical PTPs are generally targeted at reducing P outputs, not N, though their nutrient removal capacity is highly dependent upon the specifications of the chosen PTP."}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs are small sewage treatment facilities used to treat wastewater from properties which cannot connect to a mains sewer. Chemical PTPs treat wastewater using chemical dosing to promote nutrient removal. It is worth noting that chemical and biological PTPs can be combined to increase nutrient removal. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"New development sites"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring; can ensure correct dosing in perpetuity; no ecological impact; and no use of aluminium."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Chemical PTPs recommended for P not N, should only be used where not reasonable for dev to connect to mains sewers, limitations regarding size of development, no use of aluminium due to ecological impact, and if using other chemicals correct dosing at all times required with no ecological impact."}]

{"sheet":"Private Biological PTPs","index":21,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Private Biological PTPs",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"PTPs are small sewage treatment facilities used to treat wastewater from properties which cannot connect to a mains sewer. Biological PTPs treat wastewater by promoting biological processes to remove nutrients. It is worth noting that chemical and biological PTPs can be combined to increase nutrient removal."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan, including need to ensure that household chemicals/detergents are not used which would negatively impact treatment efficiency. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in biological PTPs, the likely removal capacity of these schemes is high for N and low for P. Biological PTPs have nutrient removal technologies to reduce nutrient outputs in sewage. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"PTPs should only be used where it is not reasonable for development to connect to a public foul sewer. They must also be able to connect to an electricity supply. "}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying private biological PTPs as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between <1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"Biological PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Biological PTPs require regular checks and sampling to ensure they continuing to meet nutrient removal standards, as well as ensuring that the householder does not use chemicals/detergents which will negatively affect the treatment process, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means biological PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":20},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"New development sites"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying private biological PTPs as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take between <1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Biological PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Biological PTPs require regular checks and sampling to ensure they continuing to meet nutrient removal standards, as well as ensuring that the householder does not use chemicals/detergents which will negatively affect the treatment process, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means biological PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. "}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in biological PTPs, the likely removal capacity of these schemes is high for N and low for P. Biological PTPs have nutrient removal technologies to reduce nutrient outputs in sewage. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs are small sewage treatment facilities used to treat wastewater from properties which cannot connect to a mains sewer. Biological PTPs treat wastewater by promoting biological processes to remove nutrients. It is worth noting that chemical and biological PTPs can be combined to increase nutrient removal."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"New development sites"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan, including need to ensure that household chemicals/detergents are not used which would negatively impact treatment efficiency. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs should only be used where it is not reasonable for development to connect to a public foul sewer. They must also be able to connect to an electricity supply. "}]

{"sheet":"Private ST | PTP Upgrades","index":22,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[9,9,10,11],[5,13,7,15],[9,13,9,15],[12,3,12,7],[12,9,12,11],[1,14,1,15],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[15,3,15,5],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[10,13,12,15],[14,13,14,15],[15,13,18,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[8,9,8,11]]}
[]
[null,null,"Private ST | PTP Upgrades",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"PTP / ST upgrades can either install new nutrient removal technology or improve existing nutrient removal technology at an existing PTP / ST. "},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. PTP / ST upgrades can generally be delivered on relatively small land area, often within the boundary of treatment works."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Maintenance plan. Credits can be calculated upfront but maintenance required to ensure efficacy in perpetuity. See private and chemical PTPs for more details. "},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"If using a drainage field, an upgrade proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"As PTP / ST upgrades are designed to strip nutrients from sewage, the removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is likely to be high. This, however, is dependent upon the technology used for the upgrades - see private biological and chemical PTPs for more details."}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"PTPs or septic tanks that discharge to ground should only be replaced by units that also discharge to ground, where ground conditions are appropriate for drainage. PTPs/ST which meet the P thresholds for small scale discharges may not be used to generate credits. No use of aluminium due to ecological impact"}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying private ST / PTP upgrades as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take 3+ years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme. Once a scheme is operational, credits can be awarded."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"PTP / ST upgrades require significant engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, final effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, environmental permitting."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"PTP / ST upgrades require significant operational management and maintenance, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. See private biological and chemical PTPs for more details."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"PTP / ST upgrades are significant capital infrastructure projects with a medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":21},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Urban areas"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"3+ yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying private ST / PTP upgrades as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take 3+ years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme. Once a scheme is operational, credits can be awarded."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTP / ST upgrades require significant engineering design, environmental licences and permits, and construction management, thus scoring medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to flood risk assessments, final effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, environmental permitting."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTP / ST upgrades require significant operational management and maintenance, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. See private biological and chemical PTPs for more details."}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTP / ST upgrades are significant capital infrastructure projects with a medium cost relative to other mitigation options."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"As PTP / ST upgrades are designed to strip nutrients from sewage, the removal capacity of these schemes for both N and P is likely to be high. This, however, is dependent upon the technology used for the upgrades - see private biological and chemical PTPs for more details."}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTP / ST upgrades can either install new nutrient removal technology or improve existing nutrient removal technology at an existing PTP / ST. "}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. PTP / ST upgrades can generally be delivered on relatively small land area, often within the boundary of treatment works."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"If using a drainage field, an upgrade proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Urban areas"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Maintenance plan. Credits can be calculated upfront but maintenance required to ensure efficacy in perpetuity. See private and chemical PTPs for more details. "}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits."}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs or septic tanks that discharge to ground should only be replaced by units that also discharge to ground, where ground conditions are appropriate for drainage. PTPs/ST which meet the P thresholds for small scale discharges may not be used to generate credits. No use of aluminium due to ecological impact"}]

{"sheet":"PTPs managed by NAV","index":23,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[12,9,12,11],[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[14,13,14,15],[15,3,15,5],[15,13,18,15],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[1,14,1,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[5,13,7,15],[8,9,8,11],[9,9,10,11],[9,13,9,15],[10,13,12,15],[12,3,12,7]]}
[]
[null,null,"PTPs managed by NAV",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"In both sewered and unsewered areas, developments may be able to provide private wastewater treatment facilities which operate at a higher efficiency than the main WwTW. The private facility must be managed by a New Appointments and Variations (NAV) i.e OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker or managed by a Local Authority-assured competent operator."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in PTPs, the likely removal capacity of these schemes is high for both N and P. PTPs have nutrient removal technologies to reduce nutrient outputs in sewage. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Can be used is sewered areas as long as the facility is adopted and managed by an OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker, or managed by a Local Authority-assured competent operator. The permit limit for such facilities will need to be agreed with the EA. No use of aluminium due to ecological impact."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying PTPs managed by an OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker or by a Local Authority-assured competent operator, it is likely that the scheme will take between< 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"PTPs require regular checks and sampling to ensure they continuing to meet nutrient removal standards, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. They may also require regular additions of chemicals to maintain nutrient removal."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":22},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"New development sites"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr; 1-3 yrs"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying PTPs managed by an OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker or by a Local Authority-assured competent operator, it is likely that the scheme will take between< 1 and 3 years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required for construction of a property and installation of the PTP."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs require a design for installation, which may involve construction works and management, with a medium for ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to finale effluent nutrient concentrations, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs require regular checks and sampling to ensure they continuing to meet nutrient removal standards, resulting in high level management and maintenance requirements. They may also require regular additions of chemicals to maintain nutrient removal."}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Cost of the PTP, installation and ongoing maintenance means PTPs means are ranked as medium cost relative to other mitigation options. "}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients in PTPs, the likely removal capacity of these schemes is high for both N and P. PTPs have nutrient removal technologies to reduce nutrient outputs in sewage. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"In both sewered and unsewered areas, developments may be able to provide private wastewater treatment facilities which operate at a higher efficiency than the main WwTW. The private facility must be managed by a New Appointments and Variations (NAV) i.e OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker or managed by a Local Authority-assured competent operator."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. PTPs require a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"If using a drainage field, a PTP proposal may need to consider climate change impacts on nutrient removal processes"}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"New development sites"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Water Companies, Land Owners, EA, LPAs"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Robust design and maintenance and monitoring plan."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"PTPs could also deliver medium levels of water purification benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, hazard reduction and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Can be used is sewered areas as long as the facility is adopted and managed by an OFWAT-appointed statutory sewerage undertaker, or managed by a Local Authority-assured competent operator. The permit limit for such facilities will need to be agreed with the EA. No use of aluminium due to ecological impact."}]

{"sheet":"Farmyard | Barn Removal","index":24,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":16,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[23,7,26,11],[28,7,31,11],[33,7,36,11],[38,7,41,11],[12,9,12,11],[13,3,13,5],[13,9,16,11],[14,3,14,5],[14,13,14,15],[15,3,15,5],[15,13,18,15],[16,3,16,5],[18,7,21,11],[1,14,1,15],[4,3,4,7],[4,9,4,11],[4,13,4,15],[5,3,10,7],[5,13,7,15],[8,9,8,11],[9,9,10,11],[9,13,9,15],[10,13,12,15],[12,3,12,7]]}
[]
[null,null,"Farmyard | Barn Removal",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to Guidance: N/A"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Description of Solution",null,null,null,null,null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",null,null,null,"Land take required"]
[null,null,null,{"$f":"C60","v":"Permanent farmyard / barn removal removes a discharge of nutrients to ground and surface water in uncovered areas that are regularly used by livestock. The scheme requires the farmyard to be demolished and the site to be appropriately restored (or converted or rebuilt into residential housing)."},null,null,null,null,null,"NE","Water Companies","Land Owners",null,{"$f":"C61","v":"Low. Farmyard / barn removal requires a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"EA","Env. NGOs","LPAs"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"What's needed for certainty"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C70","v":"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the land will remain in a semi-natural state in perpetuity."},null,null,null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C62","v":"Farmyard / barn removal may need to consider the impact of legacy nutrients in the soil, the geology of the site with reference to lag times, and climate change impacts on surface water runoff volumes. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Applicable Input Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Potential % nutrient reduction efficacy"]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Point Source",null,null,null,"Urban Areas",null,{"$f":"C58","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients when removing farmyard, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes is low for N and low for P. "}]
[null,null,null,"Agricultural Diffuse Source",null,null,null,"Other Industrial/Urban Point Sources",null,null,null,null,null,"Constraints "]
[null,null,null,"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)",null,null,null,"New Development Sites",null,null,null,null,null,{"$f":"C72","v":"Farmyards on chalk where significant delays are expected before the affected watercourse benefitted are not acceptable. The farmyard must currently be legally compliant; this will require an independent agricultural consultant appraisal or confirmation from the EA."}]
[null,null,null,"Aquaculture",null,null,null,"Wastewater Treatment Works"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Time to Effectiveness",null,null,null,{"$f":"C54","v":"From identifying farmyard / barn removal as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take <  1 yr years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme. Once a scheme is operational, credits can be awarded."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"< 1 yr","1-3 yrs","3+ yrs"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Ease of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C55","v":"The process of removing farmyards / barns will have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to current nutrient input to agricultural land, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, post-implementation land use."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Easy","Med","Hard"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Maintenance",null,null,null,{"$f":"C56","v":"Removing farmyards / barns can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements once the site has been appropriately restored. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Cost of Implementation",null,null,null,{"$f":"C57","v":"Removing farmyards / barns has a low cost of implementation as there are minimal costs associated with converting the land back to a semi-natural state due to the low design requirements, for example."}]
[]
[null,null,null,"Low","Med","High"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Wider Benefits",null,null,null,{"$f":"C71","v":"Farmyard / barn removal could also deliver medium levels of hazard reduction benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, water purification and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[]
[null,null,null,"High","Med","Low",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Inputs'!A1\",\"Inputs tab\")","v":"Inputs tab"}]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Link to:",{"$f":"HYPERLINK(\"#'Summary'!A1\",Summary!C2)","v":"Summary Table "}]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"Meta data",null,null,{"$f":"SEARCH(D16,C63)","v":{"$error":"#VALUE!"}}]
[null,{"$f":"MATCH(C2,Lookups!F:F,0)","v":23},null,null,{"$f":"D16","v":"Flowing Waterbodies (lotic)"}]
[null,"Management/Maintenance Requirements",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B48,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1},null,{"$f":"C63","v":"Agricultural Diffuse Source"}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B49,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Lag time to reach efficiency",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B50,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":{"$error":"#N/A"}}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B51,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Wider Benefits",{"$f":"4-INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B52,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":3}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B53,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"< 1 yr"}]
[null,"Time to Effectiveness - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B54,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"From identifying farmyard / barn removal as a possible mitigation solution, it is likely that the scheme will take <  1 yr years to start removing nutrients. This includes the time required to design, implement and construct the scheme. Once a scheme is operational, credits can be awarded."}]
[null,"Ease of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B55,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"The process of removing farmyards / barns will have relatively simple design requirements with a high ease of implementation. Implementation considerations include but are not limited to current nutrient input to agricultural land, local geology/hydrogeology, local soil conditions, post-implementation land use."}]
[null,"Maintenance - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B56,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Removing farmyards / barns can provide nutrient mitigation with minimal long-term intervention, resulting in low level management and maintenance requirements once the site has been appropriately restored. "}]
[null,"Cost of Implementation - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B57,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Removing farmyards / barns has a low cost of implementation as there are minimal costs associated with converting the land back to a semi-natural state due to the low design requirements, for example."}]
[null,"Scale of nutrient reduction - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B58,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Considering the processes that remove nutrients when removing farmyard, the likely percentage removal capacity of these schemes is low for N and low for P. "}]
[]
[null,"Description of Solution - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B60,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Permanent farmyard / barn removal removes a discharge of nutrients to ground and surface water in uncovered areas that are regularly used by livestock. The scheme requires the farmyard to be demolished and the site to be appropriately restored (or converted or rebuilt into residential housing)."}]
[null,"Land take required - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B61,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Low. Farmyard / barn removal requires a small amount of land for deployment."}]
[null,"Wider Considerations of Environmental Conditions - free text",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B62,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Farmyard / barn removal may need to consider the impact of legacy nutrients in the soil, the geology of the site with reference to lag times, and climate change impacts on surface water runoff volumes. "}]
[null,"Applicable Input Sources",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B63,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Agricultural Diffuse Source"}]
[null,"Likely Stakeholders for Engagement",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B64,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"NE, Land Owners, EA"}]
[null,"Biodiversity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B65,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Hazard Regulation",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B66,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":2}]
[null,"Amenity",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B67,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Carbon Sequestration",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B68,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Water Purification",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B69,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":1}]
[null,"Whats needed for certainty",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B70,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Measure has certainty on implementation provided it can be evidenced that the land will remain in a semi-natural state in perpetuity."}]
[null,"Wider Benefits - free text",{"$f":"INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B71,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Farmyard / barn removal could also deliver medium levels of hazard reduction benefits, and low levels of amenity, carbon sequestration, water purification and biodiversity benefits. "}]
[null,"Constraints ",{"$f":"\"\"&INDEX(Lookups!$1:$23,B$47,MATCH(B72,Lookups!$2:$2,0))","v":"Farmyards on chalk where significant delays are expected before the affected watercourse benefitted are not acceptable. The farmyard must currently be legally compliant; this will require an independent agricultural consultant appraisal or confirmation from the EA."}]