Colonization of Macrophytes, Invertebrates and Fish in a Dredged and Re-connected Oxbow Lake
Uta Grünert, Marc Leszinski, Frank Fredrich and Jörg Gelbrecht
Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany River Catchment
• River Spree is a 6th order sand- bed lowland river
Elbe Berlin • Downstream section has a high recreational value for people of the region Spree River catchment • Provides drinking water • Natura 2000 protected area Germany • Flow is regulated by two reservoirs and a large lignite mining region Restoration Site
• Re-connection is the beginning of a series of restoration measures along the downstream river course • 5 of 21 oxbow lakes remaining in the floodplain, will be reconnected to the river Picture taken by M. Pusch, 2005
We aim for an integrative ‚step by step‘ restoration scheme Restoration Work
Picture taken by T. Weidner, 2005 • Appr. 6 600 m3 of nutrient rich organic mud layer was dredged from the meander to prevent sediment mobilisation • The meander was re-connected to the main river course in 2005 at the upper end along the old river bed Evaluation of Restoration Success
• The main goal of the restoration measures is to increase flow and habitat variability to the riverine species community, induce self-regulatory processes and increase recreational value
Three years monitoring program: • Indicators: Macrophytes, invertebrates and fish • Sample sites: Re-connected meander, reference site in the main channel and new stagnant water area (only fish) Target Species
• Macrophytes: Target macrophyte communities were derived from palaeo-limnological studies on plant seeds in sediment cores from oxbow lakes (Hilt et al. 2008)
Fast flowing reaches - Slow flowing reaches - Ranunculetum fluitantis Sagittario- sparganietosum Sparganietum emersi Target Species
• Invertebrates (literature): lotic, endangered species of the Spree - Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Trichoptera, and Unionidae • Fish (literature): lotic, endangered species of the Spree - Barbel, Vimba Bream and Brook Lamprey; Dace, Loach and Chub Results - Macrophytes
Legend 2005 2006 2007 Saggitario- Sparganietum Rapid re- emersi colonization < 5 % by target 5 - 25 % species for 25 - 50 % slow flowing 50 - 75 % reaches 75 - 100 %
Flow direction
• Four flow tolerant Potamogeton species, one lentic Potamogeton species and one Callitriche species were among the colonizers Non-metric Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS)
Straight section - Ordination Stress: 0.11 MIa-T3 R Statistics MIa-T4 MIa-1MIa-2 (subm. Macroph.) MIa-2 MIa-T4 2006 MIa-1MIa-T3 R (2005): 0.99 2007
MIa-T8 Rf-T5 MIa-T5 MIa-T5 R (2006): 0.90 (0.83 ) Rf-1 MIa-T7 MIa-T9 Rf-T3Rf-2Rf-T6Rf-2 MIa-T7-0T7MIa-T6 Rf-T6 MIa-T6 Rf-1Rf-2Rf-T6Rf-T7 MIa-T8MIa-T10 Rf-T7 Rf-T8Rf-T5 R (2007): 0.89 (0.61 ) Rf-T9 Rf-T10 Rf-T4 Rf-T9 Rf-T3Rf-T4 MIa-T5 Rf-T8Rf-T8 Rf-T7Rf-T9Rf-T3 Rf-T5 MIa-T10 MIa-T6 Rf-TT10 MIa-T9 Rf-T10Rf-T4 MIa-T10MIa-T7MIa-T8 2005 Reference site MIa-T9
Similarity of species compositions between straight section and reference site increases from 2005 to 2007 Summary - Macrophytes
1) River shows a high re-colonisation potential 2) Colonisers were dominated by species characteristic for slow flowing reaches and high sedimentation 3) Less uniform colonisation and higher species diversity
4) Deficit: Target macrophyte community for faster flowing reaches was not among the colonisers 5) Rare species are often among the later colonisers Results - Sediment
0.9 • Increase in x e 0.8 substrate d n I
heterogeneity r 0.7 e one year after n e i 0.6 re-connection W
n 0.5 Legend o n • Formation of n 0.4 Reference Site a small gravel h Straight section
S 0.3 Meander bend banks, 0.2 accumulation Apr Aug Apr Aug Apr Aug of woody 2005 2006 2007 debris Results - Invertebrates
85 t n e i 80 • High biocoenotic c i f f 75 similarity to e o 70 benthos C -
s community of i
t 65 r the reference u 60 C - Legend site was y a 55 reached already
r Straight section
B 50 Meander bend one year after 45 re-connection Apr Aug Apr Aug Apr Aug 2005 2006 2007 Summary-Invertebrates
1) Increase in lotic species; such as Baetis, Hydropsyche, Simulium, Aphelocheirus and the endangered dragonfly Ophiogomphus cecilia 2) Only few lentic species were lost - main channel inhabits considerable number of lentic species due to the potamal character of the River Spree
3) Unionidae – Spree inhabits six of seven unionids present in Germany; five were found in the re- connected meander 4) 12 juvenile, endangered Unio crassus were found in 2007 which prefer gravel, larger grain sizes and need high interstitial flow rates Results - Fish
Stag Re-connected Reference Site nant meander water 1992 2001 2007 1992 2001 2007 2007 Total No of 17 19 17 fish species 14 11 19 16 Lotic 5 6 6 3 1 6 4 Lentic 2 2 3 4 2 4 3
• Re-connected meander shows increase in fish species numbers after restoration measures Summary - Fish
1) Increase in lotic species (Dace and Chub), and the FFH protected species Asp und Loach 2) Lentic species numbers remain stable, but show decrease in abundance
3) Deficit: Fish community in the main channel and re-connected meander is dominated by flow generalists – Roach, Pike and Bass 4) Generally only few lotic species occurred in low numbers 5) The newly created stagnant water body has not developed into a suitable habitat for lotic or for lentic fish Conclusion
I. The local restoration measures successfully established a wider variability of habitats for the endangered riverine species community of the Spree II. Higher flow variability, erosional areas and sediment transport
Deficits: incised river bed and long periods of low discharge in summer that cause high siltation rates Conclusion
I. The best possible restoration success is inhibited by low discharge variabilty II. Habitats have to be re-generated
III. Increase in river bottom levels to further promote habitat heterogeneity at low discharge levels IV. Maintain and re-build new stagnant water areas Thanks
Environmental Agency Brandenburg for funding the project My Co-authors Can theory help practice? The role of pilot projects in floodplain restoration
River Restoration Centre, Exeter, 16-18 april 2008
Heleen Vreugdenhil [email protected]
April 22, 2008
1 April 22, 2008 2 Basel (CH): Restoring Groundwater-Surface water interaction
MGU floodplain project
Wiese river Swiss/German border
Wiese river restoration pilot project
April 22, 2008 3 Altenheim (Germany, Baden- Wurttemberg): Mannheim Ecological Flooding Rheinschanzinsel Elisabethenwört
Karlsruhe Bellenkopf/Rappenwört Rastatt Söllingen/Greffern
Strasbourg Freistett Integrated Kulturwehr Kehl Offenburg Rhine Programme Polder Altenheim Ichenheim/Meißenheim/Ottenheim Elzmündung Wyhl/Weisweil Breisach/Burkheim Freiburg Kulturwehr Breisach
Weil - Breisach
Basel Bron: RP Freiburg – Dr. U. Pfarr April 22, 2008 4 Beuningen (NL): Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation
April 22, 2008 5 Dilemma
• How can we cross-compare amongst different pilots? • What determines whether pilots will be adopted as practice or dissipate and • can this be influenced?
April 22, 2008 6 Outline for understanding pilots
• Characterizing • Typology and Effects • Interaction with context • Mechanisms • Limitations: • river management • public space • concept application rather than artifact
April 22, 2008 7 Pilots: characteristics
• Concept • Methodology • Scale • Transferability • Focus on learning • Intervention/ Design • Innovativeness • Status • Risk • Multi-actor context
April 22, 2008 8 Characteristics: Intention
• Overt goals • Evaluative instrument • Knowledge development • Practical experience
• Hidden goals • Communication of underlying concept • Means to an end • Special status use
April 22, 2008 9 Characteristics: Initiation
• Policy level
• Field level – Operational level/ agencies – Scientific community
April 22, 2008 10 Typology Policy level i n i t i a
Altenheim t i o n Early policy evaluation Showcase
Knowledge driven intention Means to an end
Concept Idealistic, development Opportunistic
Basel Beuningen
Operational and research level
April 22, 2008 11 Effects of interest
• Physical (e.g. implementation, physical response) • Concept (e.g. adaptation in assumptions) • Practices (e.g. adjusting policy programs) • Scaling up (e.g. expansion, policy program development) • Large-scale changes (e.g. changing belief systems)
April 22, 2008 12 Context
Broader Context
Prevailing O ngoing Direct Context Direct Context
Use of Reason Pilot Outcomes Outcome
t
April 22, 2008 13 Mechanisms (1)
• Knowledge development- and learning cycle (e.g. mosquitoes)
• Social adaptiveness (actor-network dynamics)
• Transferring agent: experience-based judgment, with a feel for the context (meta-knowledge)
April 22, 2008 14 Mechanisms (2)
• Multi-level connectedness (institutionalized and by individuals): • between operational (including agencies and citizens) and policy level enhances chance for follow up • between ecological and dominant goals (flood defense, navigation) increases chance of implementation
• Internal focus: reduced responsiveness to external triggers after passing threshold (e.g. well prepared and institutionalized interdisciplinarity)
April 22, 2008 15 In conclusion…
….I’d welcome your… experiences with pilot projects …knowledge on comparable cases …ideas on why certain things happened
April 22, 2008 16 River Restoration Conference University of Exeter, England April 2008
Expedited Design and Construction of Judicial Ditch-2 Stream Restoration
“2,100 feet of Stream Restoration in 45 Days”
L. Peter MacDonagh, RLA Director of Design + Science, The Kestrel Design Group, Inc. Edward Matthiesen, PE Principal Engineer, Wenck Associates, Inc. Vegetation Zone Maps
*Color schemes do not exactly correlate
http://www.gardenweb.com/zones/europe/
29.41 inches/year (747 millimeters) average precipitation for Minneapolis Minnesota 23.00 inches/year (584 millimeters) average precipitation for London England
2 Location
Image courtesy of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Storm types: High intensity, short duration
Image courtesy of Google.com
3 Anoka County Ramsey County
2100’ Hardwood Creek OR Judicial Ditch - 2 4 2100’ Hardwood Creek OR Judicial Ditch - 2 5 Purpose of Project
Main Goal:
Stabilize eroding channel banks and raise channel bed along Hardwood Creek in Anoka County in Lino Lakes Secondary Goals:
Use bioengineering management practices
Improve macroinvertibrate habitat biota
Improve aesthetics
Use BWSR Grant to the maximum extent possible
6 Project Constraint
Informed of project in May 2006 and BWSR grant to expire at the end of June 2006. 45 Days from analysis to design through construction
Construction sequence required root wads to be installed prior to other activity so site access could be gained.
More than one contractor on site.
Limited time required field design in 1 day
7 What’s the problem? May 12, 2006
More efficient agricultural land conveyance Land cover change in watershed TMDL impaired for biota Stream reach unravelling 45 day design through construction schedule
TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load
8 What’s the problem? May 12, 2006
You want it when?...45 Days?!
Schedule: May 12: Project kickoff meeting between Wenck, Kestrel and Rice Creek Watershed District May 12: Field review, field design May 19: Bid announcement May 23: Pre-bid meeting May 30: Bids due May 31: Notice to Proceed June 1: Bid #1 Preconstruction meeting (<$50,000) June 7: Bid #2 Preconstruction meeting (<$50,000) June 20: Bid #3 Preconstruction meeting (<$50,000) June 25: Construction completion June 25: Grant termination
9 May 12, 2006
2100’ Hardwood Creek OR Judicial Ditch - 2 10 Stream Reach Unraveling May 12, 2006
11 Field Review and Design Day May 12, 2006
Stream Morphology & Soil Bioengineering Techniques
Concept: Raise Creek Bed, Access Q50 floodplain 12 Existing Conditions May 12, 2006 Field Design Day
Need Root Wads and J-Vanes
Need X-Vanes
13 Existing Conditions May 12, 2006 Field Design Day
Needs X-Vanes Downstream
Needs X-Vanes Upstream
14 Existing Conditions May 12, 2006 Field Design Day
Needs J-Vanes
Needs X-Vanes
15 Existing Conditions May 12, 2006 Field Design Day
Needs J-Vanes
Needs X-Vanes
Needs X-Vanes
16 Field Review and Design Day May 12, 2006
17 Field Review and Design Day May 12, 2006
18 Detail Design & May 13, 2006 Construction Documents
19 Detail Design & May 14, 15, 16 2006 Construction Documents
20 Detail Design & May 14, 15, 16 2006 Construction Documents
21 Detail Design & May 17, 2006 Construction Documents
22 Detail Design & May 17,18 2006 Construction Documents
23 Project Bid Announcement May 19, 2006
Your company is invited to submit a bid or bids for one, two or three of the following project components.
The Rice Creek Watershed District will be accepting bids for the JD-2 bank stabilization project until 12:00PM Tuesday May 30, 2006. Faxed bids are acceptable. The District’s Fax # is 763-398-3088. A Notice to Proceed can be issued as soon as 12:00PM on Wednesday May 31, 2006 assuming the contract is signed and acceptable insurance certificates are received. A pre-bid walk through is scheduled for 9:30AM Tuesday May 23, 2006 starting at 2295 80th St. East, Hugo, Minnesota. Plans, bid forms and the contract will be distributed at the pre-bid meeting. There is no cost for the contract documents. The pre-bid meeting is not required but is recommended.
24 Project Bid Announcement May 19, 2006
Summary of work:
The project consists of bank stabilization activities along 2,100-ft of Judicial Ditch #2 in Hugo, Minnesota in Anoka County. The project is bid in Three components: 1) Root wad placement, 2) Physical Restoration and 3) Vegetative Restoration. The project will be paid on the unit price per the quantity installed. The quantities may vary from those noted below based on the field location of the activity at the time of placement. There may be one, two or three contractors.
The construction sequence is anticipated to be: 1) Root wad tree harvesting to open access ways to the creek, 2) root wad installation and physical restoration, 3) seeding for site restoration, 4) vegetative restoration.
25 Project Bid Announcement May 19, 2006
Bid #1 Root Wad Installation:
This work consists of furnishing the boulders for the root wads and the on-site harvesting of 67 trees and the use of these trees in 67 root wad installations.
This work shall substantially be completed by June 25, 2006.
The selected contractor shall work in coordination with the Physical Restoration contractor.
The Engineer’s estimate for this work is $45,000.
26 Project Bid Announcement May 19, 2006
Bid #2 Physical Restoration:
This work consists of furnishing the materials and installation of 2-W vanes, 13-J vanes, 17-Cross vanes and site restoration.
This work shall substantially be completed by June 25, 2006. The selected contractor shall work in coordination with the Root Wad Installation contractor.
The Engineer’s estimate for this work is $46,000.
27 Project Bid Announcement May 19, 2006 Bid #3 Vegetative Restoration:
This work shall substantially be This work consists of the materials completed by March15, 2007. and installation of the following: Pre-billing for material is required 2,200 live stakes, with an invoice due by June 25, herbicide 5 trees, 2006. 50LF of Coir D block in a single It is anticipated that the root wad row with back fill, installation and physical 50LF of Coir D block in a double restoration will be completed prior row high with back fill, to the vegetative restoration. 100SF of Dwarf Bankers installed The Engineer’s estimate for this at 2’O.C., work is $28,000. 100SY of blown compost with An alterative bid item for the seed, additional installation of 9 riffles is included in Bid #3 with an 25 Button Bushes, estimated cost of $15,000. 25 Elders, 50SF of Bulrush at 2’ The selected contractor for Bid#3 O.C., shall work in coordination with the 100SY of Switch and Prairie Cord Root Wad Installation and Grass Physical Site Restoration Site restoration contractors
28 Bids Due May 30, 2006
29 Bids Due May 30, 2006
30 Bids Due May 30, 2006
31 Pre-Construction Meeting for Bid #1 June 1, 2006
10 .3 Cross-Vanes (beginning and end of run) .5 Root wads (between both banks) .Live staking on both banks .Stake throat of stream at upstream end of straightaway 11 .11 Root wads (double row) .Stakes on cut bank (5 rows) 12 .Live stakes on cut bank (3 rows) 13 .5 Root wads .3 Rows live stakes right into bank 14 .Cut back Redosier .Live stakes on west bank (5 rows) .1 Cross-Vane 15 .1 Cross-Vane .Live stakes on cut banks 16 .50’ – 2 Coir Blocks high with live stakes, backfill from stream (~80 CY of fill) .6 Root wads (upstream and downstream) .Note: cut bank meets agricultural field 17 .5 rows live stakes on both banks .Remove 2 American Elms and Willow in channel .1 J-Vane 18 .Live stakes on cut 19 .2 Riffles .Remove railroad ties and steel posts 20 .3 Cross-Vanes .3 J-Vanes .Dwarf Bankers Willow on cut bank nearest house (3 rows) .Keep concrete rubble, push concrete into bank with backhoe, blanket with compost and 8’ stakes and seed 21 .Coir D Block with live stake nails .1 row Dwarf Bankers Willow .Button Bush and Elder .Remove collapsed bank material in channel and place behind Coir D Block .Note: no high willows 32 Pre-Construction Meeting for Bid #1 June 1, 2006
22 .Remove blockage .2 Riffles 23 .4 Riffles .River Bulrush plugs in open stretch at water’s edge .Switch and Prairie Cord Grass on upper bank .Remove 3 trees overhanging 24 .5 Root wads on tall cut bank .Herbicide in place Box Elder .3 J-Vanes 25 .1 J-Vane .1 Cross-Vane .River Bulrush and Switch and Prairie Cord Grass plugs on cut bank 26 .1 J-Vane .10 root wads .4 “A” channel boulder steps in small channel on N side 27 .2 Cross Vanes .5 rows live stakes .5 Root wads 28 .10 root wads .3 Cross-Vanes (2 upstream where bypass is developed) .Live stakes .Remove 4 trees 29 .3 Cross-Vanes .1 Riffle .Live stakes .1-W-Vane 30 .1 W-Vane .1 J-Vane
33 Pre-Construction Meeting for Bid #1 June 1, 2006
34 Bid #1 June 1-7, 2006 Under Construction Root Wads
35 Bid #2 June 7-20, 2006 Under Construction Vanes and Riffles
Riffle Complete
Cross Vane Complete
36 Bid #3 June 20-25, 2006 Under Construction Coir, Live Stakes, Seeding
Site # 16 – Coir D Restore Bank Overtop Scour 37 Bid #3 June 20-25, 2006 Under Construction Coir, Live Stakes, Seeding
38 Schedule:
May 12: Project kickoff meeting between Wenck, Kestrel and Rice Creek Watershed District May 12: Field review, field design May 19: Bid announcement May 23: Pre-bid meeting May 30: Bids due May 31: Notice to Proceed June 1: Bid #1 Preconstruction meeting June 7: Bid #2 Preconstruction meeting June 20: Bid #3 Preconstruction meeting June 25: Construction completion June 25: Grant termination
39 Key Results June 1-7, 2006
Bid #1 Rood Wads:
Install 31 root wads, tree removal to provide access to creek
Reuse trees on site and provide physical bank stability and habitat
Engineer estimate $45,000 (low bid from Sunram Construction $50,485)
40 Key Results June 7-20, 2006
Bid #2 Physical Restoration Install rock vanes, riffles and bank resloping
Engineer estimate $46,000 (low bid from Wetland Habitat Restoration $30,450)
41 Key Results June 20-25, 2006
Bid #3 Vegetation Install 50LF coir block, 2,200 live stakes and seeding
Engineer estimate $28,000 for base bid and $15,000 for riffles (low bid from Wetland Habitat Restoration $22,942 for base bid and $4,725)
42 Key to Meeting Project June 25, 2006 Schedule and Success
Before construction, Owner had coordinated permits and cleared it with residents to access the site for project installation
Begin site evaluation and design immediately after the Owner/Consultant kickoff meeting to allow time for contractor bidding and construction
Senior people able to do field design and field layout
Use Senior Designers to facilitate speed of plan preparation
Break project into components less than $50,000 so quotes can be received, not formal bid process
Use of quotes allowed client to pre-select contractors that had previously worked on similar stream projects with Wenck and Kestrel
43 Keys to Meeting Project June 25, 2006 Schedule and Success
Significant bid tab history of Wenck and Kestrel so cost estimates were close to returned bid amounts upon inception
Ability to Engage Contractors with this Stream Experience
Quality contractors and available contractors and materials available
Kestrel, Wenck or Owner always available on site
Use field location staking to site construction activities
Pay by installed quantity so investigatory field can be at a minimum and contractor risk is reduced
44 Ed Matthiesen, P.E., Principal Engineer Wenck Associates, Inc. [email protected]
L. Peter MacDonagh RLA, RHS, ISA,Adjunct Faulty – CDes University of Minnesota Director of Design + Science The Kestrel Design Group, Inc. [email protected] Integrating Geomorphological, Ecological And Socio-economic Elements Of The River Don Catchment To Develop A Framework For River Catchment Management Dr Sally German
Arup, Admiral House, Rose Wharf, 78 East Street, Leeds, LS9 8EE Structure
• The history of the River Don • Current projects • Environment Agency • Sheffield University • Arup Geomorphological Assessment • Desk Study • GIS and extranet • The way forward • Field survey • Development of framework Don catchment The History of the Don
• Industrial legacy • Mills (woollen and corn) • Mining (Iron, steel and coal) • Land drainage (the Dutch River) • Navigation • Urban expansion – water supply, reservoir storage, sewerage) • Flood defence • Water quality • Barriers to fish passage • Degraded habitats • Flooding – most recently June 2007 EA – Local and National
• WFD – Heavily Modified Water Body (HMWB)? • CFMP – flooding – June 2007 • CAMS – regulated flow (elevated base flows) • Fishery plans, barriers to migration • Ridings Area River Enhancement Project - desk study to assess/characterise key elements of the Don and its tributaries with reference to the potential for habitat enhancement • Waterfront strategies (developer led) Research
• Sheffield University • Catchment Science Centre • PhD Student Research • Geomorphological, • Ecological and • Socio-economic • URSULA • Type of funding • Objectives • Context Sediment transfer and landuse change
• Ingbirchworth Catchment • Catchment Sensitive Farming programme • Desk based assessment of historic landuse change and flow alteration • Field based coring of reservoir sediments, field mapping and surface and subsurface process monitoring • Preliminary results show variability relating to landuse and different rainfall events Impact of culverts on benthic ecology
• Twelve sites throughout the Don Catchment • Kick samples taken at four different locations up and downstream of the culvert at a set distance • Looking at changes in benthic communities between these locations • The results at Totley Rise show that the culvert has an impact on the ecology • This is not the case at all sites Impact of flooding on the hyporheic zone
• The effect of flooding on hyporheic invertebrate communities • Survey of hyporheic invertebrates before and after a large flood event over 21 sites • Results showed no differences detected in the hyporheic zone in comparison to the benthic area, where there was a reduction in presence of species post flood Restoration impact on socio-economic variables • Comparing sites that have been restored versus control sites • Total of 15 sites • Index of deprivation scores determined to compare sites • Rother Valley Country Park • Degraded due to mining activity • A new channel was created • Aim to attract more people to the area • Deprivation scores for this site and the control site are very similar Arup study
• Arup Internal R&D funding • Building on the work undertaken by the EA on the Ridings Area River Enhancement Project on the River Don and other projects • Integrating work on geomorphological, ecological and socio-economic elements of the River Don by CatSci PhD students at Sheffield University • Geomorphological assessment to determine a baseline to link current elements that are being studied in the catchment Geomorphological Assessment - Desk Study
• Data Collection • Review of literature and data • Development of GIS and extranet • Exchange of data/information with EA staff and CatSci students • Development of classification methodology • Creation of geomorphological zones Above Normal Tidal Limit?
Don Zones Y N Not included
A Solid Geology?
A1 Upper A2 Middle A3 Lower
B Drift Geology? B Drift Geology? B Drift Geology?
B1 B2 B3 B1 B2 B1 B2 Less More Peat Less More Less More drift drift drift drift drift drift
C Regulation? C Regulation? C Regulation?
C1 Yes C1 Yes C2 No C1 Yes C2 No C2 No
D Urban Area?
D1 Yes D2 No
E Managed?
E3 E1 E2 Flood E4 E5 No Restored? Canalised/culverted embankments/ Weirs/sluices? management? ? defences?
GIS and Extranet
• GIS allows a range of data to be looked at over a range of different scales • Extranet for partners working on the project hosted by Arup • Provides facility to upload new datasets that have been collected and download datasets that are currently available • View variable layers of data without needing full GIS software
Programme
• Launch of extranet site – June 2008 • Field survey programme – Spring/Summer 2008 • Using hand held PDA’s • Data analysis – Autumn 2008 • Development of initial framework – Winter 2008/Spring 2009 • Presentation at RRC Conference 2009 • Informing future river management decisions within the River Don Catchment – long term goal River restoration drivers and benefits – Are we getting what we want?
Jo Cullis ([email protected]) Richard Ashby-Crane ([email protected]) Oliver Clegg ([email protected])
Halcrow Group Limited Presentation overview
• What do we want?
• Key drivers
• Benefits
• Some case studies
• A catchment approach? Some definitions …
• “River restoration focuses on improving the quality and function of river environments by removing past structures and restoring a more natural channel form.” Environment Agency (2006): ‘A Strategy for restoring rivers in North London’
• Restoration is "the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance." National Research Council (1992): ‘Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems’
• River rehabilitation: “the process of restoring part of the physical form of a river to a pre-disturbed state.” Environment Agency (2000): Practical aspects from 16 case studies
… reducing management intervention and helping the river heal itself … Statutory drivers
• European Directives: Habitats, Birds & WFD … – favourable condition – good ecological status
• Defra high level targets: – PSA Target 3 … favourable condition – PSA Target 4 … environmental enhancement
• Statutory duties and responsibilities e.g. Environment Agency, Local Authorities – e.g. protect and enhance natural features … Other drivers • Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9 – healthy functioning ecosystems
• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) – enhancement of priority habitats and species
• Fisheries management – better fishing, healthy ecosystem – wild trout
• Development – positive features for people and wildlife; mitigation
• Private industry – mitigating impact and enhancement Possible benefits
• Diverse habitat - range of ‘typical’ species
• Improved flood storage capacity
• Enhanced amenity and recreation
• Sustainable transport e.g. safe foot and cycle paths
• Enhanced landscape and visual amenity
• Health benefits – green corridors Case study examples
3 case studies demonstrating different drivers
– Quaggy River: flood risk management
– River Kennet: ecological
– River Biss: urban regeneration Sutcliffe Park, Greenwich - Quaggy River
Sutcliffe Park – underused football pitch, lacking biodiversity Quaggy River culverted History of major flooding caused by urban development
Project aim To provide appropriate, reliable, environmentally beneficial, socially acceptable and cost effective flood alleviation
Photo courtesy of Jean Hunt Sutcliffe Park, Greenwich - Quaggy River River Kennet - Barton Court
River Kennet – chalk stream SSSI Unfavourable condition Land-use change and historic flood defence Over-wide in places causing reduced biodiversity
Project aim Reduce channel width and depth Naturalise flow Restore ecological value (chalk stream character) River Kennet - Barton Court River Biss, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
River Biss – underused asset within town centre Degraded river with few natural features Enclosed, dark, unattractive and lacking biodiversity
Public Realm Design and Implementation Plan (PRDIP) aims to: Support regeneration, promote good design, increase access Enhance biodiversity of the river Improve the functioning of the Biss as Green Infrastructure River Biss, Trowbridge, Wiltshire Case study summary
Project Drivers Funding Benefits Conflicts
Quaggy FRM EA FRM Flood defence Flood risk River Public open Recreation Public open space space Ecology/biodiversity (potential for vandalism)
River PSA3 EA FRM Ecology/biodiversity Flood risk Kennet Fisheries Fisheries interests Water rights
River Biss Planning Civic Pride Regeneration Development Urban bid (in Public access Flood risk regeneration progress) Ecology/biodiversity Funding mechanisms & opportunities • Planning system – developers pay?
• Low flow alleviation e.g. water company funding
• Flood Risk Management schemes
• Other Environment Agency funding
• Lottery type – e.g. HLF, Big lottery Fund
• European funding e.g. Interreg, LIFE
• Private funding (e.g. fishing clubs)
• Partnerships of the above A catchment approach?
• Consider needs and demands of whole system
• Mosaic of different projects
• Co-ordination of funding – better partnerships
• River restoration strategies? RIVER AVON AND FROME SSSIs
Application of a prioritisation process to plan and implement local actions, which deliver catchment-scale enhancement. A review of delivery to date.
Joanna Eyquem, Judith Crompton, Dr Helen Dangerfield, Nicola White
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Key Driver
2007…
…2010
95% of the SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Interest Features
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Hampshire Avon Catchment
River Avon & Avon Valley SSSIs
Water meadows SSSIs
Priority Sites
177 actions
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Frome Catchment
River SSSI to Dorchester
Floodplain units
Priority Site
31 actions
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Contribution of WLMPs
Water Level PSA Actions Management Plan 61% identified for:
River Avon River Frome Avon Valley & Others
River restoration project 7%
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Types of Action 1) Structural Works and Protocols
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Types of Action 2) To benefit channel habitat Photo for this
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Types of Action 3) To benefit floodplain habitat Photo for this
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Pre-Screening
Do not help achieve favourable condition of a SSSI
Are not related to Water Level Management
Are not technically feasible
Definitely cannot be undertaken due to other constraints (e.g. landowner objectives, flood risk management priorities. April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference The Need For Prioritisation
Over 100 mainly small-scale actions to implement
Limited resources Funding Manpower Time
Favourable Condition of SSSIs in terms of water level management on a catchment-scale
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Prioritisation Aspects
Secondary Technical Area vs Cost benefits Effectiveness
Prioritisation Ranking
Ease of Timescale Implementation required
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Prioritisation Aspects: Technical Effectiveness
Sustainability
Certainty in delivering favourable condition?
River AND floodplain habitat improvement
Upstream/downstream benefits
Quick wins
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Prioritisation Aspects: Secondary Benefits
SAC / other environmental features (not necessarily within designated SSSI)
Flood risk management
Other enhancement initiatives
Education
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Prioritisation Aspects: Area vs Cost
River “area”
+ Floodplain area
Upstream/downstream benefit to SSSI?
Design and construction cost
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Prioritisation Aspects: Timescale needed
2007…
…2010
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Prioritisation Aspects: Ease of Implementation
Stand alone actions
Landowner support
Existing initiatives (e.g. STREAM, CSF)
Low risk / high certainty
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Weightings
Ease of Implementation 10%
Timescale for implementation 10%
Technical Secondary Effectiveness benefits Score 10% 50%
Area of SSSI vs cost (£/ha improved) 20%
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Setting up and using the system
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Keeping the System Live
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Difficulties
Subjectivity
Estimating “area” of a river – often comparatively low although along a long length of river.
Changing actions, changing priorities, changing programme?
Influence of third party changes.
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Lessons Learnt
Catchment overview essential to ensure linkages between actions are not lost.
Answers are not set in stone!
Need for overview due to subjectivity.
Need to keep it “live”.
Factors other than “Area vs Cost” are important in prioritising WLMP action.
April 17th 2008 - RRC Annual Conference Integrative Monitoring and the Setting of Objectives – The Key to Project Success
Dr Kevin Skinner (Jacobs) and Dr Judy England (Environment Agency) Contents
1. Back to basics 2. Channelised rivers vs Restored rivers 3. Restoration protocol 4. Why should we monitor and why we don’t! 5. Case Study: River Idle 6. The need for integrative monitoring 7. Mayes Brook – ‘A Demonstration Project for London’ 1) Back to Basics When restoring a channel what are we trying to achieve? Restore natural form and functioning Improvement of habitat Make it sustainable: Need to be in keeping with current (not previous) hydrological and sediment regime of catchment reduce maintenance requirements Provide flood benefits? Provide aesthetic benefits Duties EA – ‘ Duty to preserve and enhance and restore habitat…- Water Resources Act 1991’ 2) Channelised vs Restored Rivers
(From Brookes, 1988) 3) Restoration protocol
Restoration Concept Undertake baseline studies Baseline Data
Setting Objectives Identify reaches that have the potential to Project Strategic be restored Level Design Methodologies Level River River Restoration Restoration Installation Prioritise reaches for restoration Monitoring
Post-Project Appraisal (PPA)
(From Skinner and Maintenance Bruce-Burgess, 2006) Dissemination 4) Why should we monitor and why we don’t! Why should we: Learn from previous experiences Justify benefits achieved by scheme Learn about recovery patterns of flora and fauna Compliance – eg Water Framework Directive Why don’t we: No requirement to do so Financial resources limited - budget used up in getting the scheme in place Financial systems within statutory authorities not easy to set a side money for monitoring over 5-10 year timescales Belief that restoration is inherently a good thing and thus there is no need 5) Case Study: River Idle
Channel previously channelised but sinuosity maintained Objectives of rehabilitation scheme (Downs and Thorne 2002): achieve geomorphological sustainability through accommodating the prevailing trend for sedimentation without a long-term commitment to frequent and costly operational maintenance; meet statutory standards of flood defence by ensuring that the rehabilitation structures and alterations to channel morphology did not raise flood flow stages unacceptably; deliver a permanent improvement to fishery and conservation value of the river through the manipulation of the flow field, via the rehabilitation designs, to prompt morphological recovery and create habitat diversity through the natural processes of scour and fill. Case Study: River Idle
River rehabilitated in 1996 through placement of in-stream deflectors in wide flood defence channel Willow and reed planting Maintenance levels reduced Monitoring Focused solely on geomorphological changes relating to erosion, bed scour and deposition Despite conservation aims no definitive monitoring was set up relating to flora and fauna Only ad-hoc fisheries being undertaken Has the scheme been successful? Case Study: River Idle
March, 1996
January, 1996 November 2007
July, 1997 Case Study: River Idle Reed planting January, 1996 November 2007 Case Study: River Idle In-stream deflector
February November 1996 2007
January 1996 6) The need for integrative monitoring
Demonstrate the level of success of a scheme through measurement of sustainable success criteria over time Link habitat and ecology changes Assess physical changes (geomorphology) Impacts on plants Impacts on macro-invertebrates (habitat changes due to physical environment & plants) Impacts on fish (habitat changes & food sources - invertebrates) 7) Mayes Brook – ‘A Demonstration Project for London’
Mayesbrook Park
Supporters: Environment Agency (Consultants – Jacobs), Barking and Dagenham Council (Consultants – to be confirmed), WWF, TRRT Mayes Brook – ‘A Demonstration Project for London’
Objective – ‘Restore both river and floodplain within Mayesbrook Park and contribute to local regeneration’
Integrated monitoring strategy: Geomorphology – deposition and erosion Habitat mapping – linking habitats to geomorphology Macrophytes – linking to habitat changes Macroinvertebrates – linking to habitat changes Fisheries – linking to habitat changes Socio-economic – linking changes to the river restoration scheme Monitoring and appraisal of the River Nith Diversion, 2000-2007 – A case study
Ian Griffin
Charles Perfect David Gilvear & Nigel Willby Introduction
• River engineering and man-made diversions may provide a solution for the restoration of heavily impacted reaches • There are few detailed appraisals of extensive diversion reaches and a poor scientific knowledge base exists regarding performance • River diversions offer a rare opportunity to examine primary colonisation and community development The River Nith, House of Water: • Small upland stream (7.5 km from source at 450 m)
• Mean annual discharge of 1.9 m3 sec-1 and mean annual flood of 31.8 m3 sec-1 Linn Burn
Burnston Burn
March Burn
Beoch Lane River Nith Nith diversion facts and figures
• Designed by Halcrow using ISIS modelling software and a detailed hydrological dataset from SEPA • 2.8 km long around half through natural gravel deposits and half through ‘made ground’ • Constructed by Morrison's, completed Sept 2000 (Cost approx £3.3 million) • Backwaters, side-cuttings and temporary channels were incorporated into the design • Modelling of natural channel with riffle-pool morphology at similar spacing Aims ,objectives & some of the questions
1. Document geomorphic adjustment, channel stability and habitat development 2. Track vegetation and macroinvertebrate community development • How does the channel diversify from a man- made channel? • Is colonisation by plants and macroinvertebrates a rapid process and how does distance limit colonists? • How successful was the diversion and what could be improved to promote community development? Method: Geomorphic adjustment
• Aerial photos (2000- 2002) were classified using GIS & geomorphic audits at 20m interval • A 1 km reach was chosen for detailed topographic survey (Thalweg and cross sections) Method: Vegetation
Colonisation of banks & gravels • Basic presence/ absence using 10m transects
Floodborne propagules • Floodborne sediment was collected from 3 channel zones • Germination in glasshouse emergence experiments • Comparison with establishing vegetation Method: Macroinvertebrates
• Baseline sampling July 2000
• Kick net sampling at 9 sample stations and 3 upstream controls(>28,000 individuals n=272)
• Data analysis: Basic statistics, DCA (sample and taxa relationships) CCA (environmental data)
• LIFE scores & species attributes as indicators of community health Hydrological regime Main Findings: Geomorphology • Rapid adjustment in only 2 weeks due to high flows
• Re-organisation of substrates & redistribution of gravels into bars
• Sediment budget was maintained although some fining of reaches was observed
• Engineered riffle/pool morphology was largely maintained
Results: Geomorphology
Limited instability • Instability was related to extremes of stream power (i.e. high/low gradient) 1. Confluence erosion & planform adjustment 2. Deposition causing sub-surface flow under low discharge 3. Head-ward erosion of smaller tributaries
Main Findings: plant communities
• Macrophytes rapidly colonised backwater features
• Bryophyte colonisation was poor in riffles
• Banks colonised poorly in comparison with gravel bar communities
• Floodborne sediment contained significant propagules Results: Macroinvertebrates
• High magnitude spates & distance from source initially limits development • Recovery of core MI taxa was rapid, Require well but specialist taxa remained absent vegetated • The diversion lacked richness of soils in banks to pupate cased caddis and abundance of Elmids (Riffle beetles) • Lack of diverse habitat leads to less resilience in the diversion community & reduced species richness E P
T
Improvements: Nith re-alignment 2004
• Develop methods of incorporating and promoting more heterogeneous habitat into engineered channels – 2004 diversion displays more rapid community development and greater species richness • Incorporate more organic material and promote riparian vegetation development- coya matting • Seeding and translocation of bryophytes into riffle features • Promote retention and deposition of floodborne propagules River Ray Restoration Phase 1 – Habitat Haven 2004/05
2005 2005 2005
2007 2007 2007 River Ray Restoration Phase 2 – Floodplain Features 2005/06
2006
2005
2007
2007 2007 River Ray Restoration Phase 3 – Community Connection 2007
2007 2007 2007
2008 2008 2008 Pre and Post Restoration Monitoring
• Fixed photo
• Cross sections
• GeoRHS
• Ecological surveys
• Macroinvertebrate surveys Early Results - macroinvertebrates
160 RIVPACS prediction 140 River Ray upstream 120
100 e r
o 80 c S 60
40
20
0 BMWP Number Taxa ASPT Macroinvertebrates & Riffles
Total number species present Number of species shared 25 number of species with top 2 LIFE groups 20
15 e r o c S 10
5
0 Natural Phase 2 Phase 2 Phase 3 (2007) (2008) (2008) Interim Results
• RIVPACS shown the Ray is an environmentally disturbed system • Restored riffles are performing well • Riffles colonised quickly – 2 years for resilient biological community structure to develop • Ecological potential limited by water quality
• Has it achieved WFD requirements? • Some…. time will tell if it achieves all Swindon Water for Wildlife Project RestorationSuccessful of the Urban River river Ray: restoration Lessons Learnt and Measuring Success.
Jo Sayers (WWT) and Karen White (Atkins) A sustainable future for wildlife and people A sustainable future for wildlife and people Swindon Water for Wildlife Project A good example of bad engineering
A sustainable future for wildlife and people Swindon Water for Wildlife Project Partnership Partnership Project
•Wiltshire Wildlife Trust •Environment Agency •Swindon Borough Council •Thames Water •Great Western Community Forest
A sustainable future for wildlife and people Swindon Water for Wildlife Project Project management
Project Management:
•Initial development •Managing Partners •Co-ordinating initial surveys •Fundraising •Consents & permissions •Overseeing groundwork •Community awareness and involvement
A sustainable future for wildlife and people Swindon Water for Wildlife Project Obstacles and Constraints
Funding Conflict between Partners Community concerns Floodplain constraints Water Quality Other Development Pressures
A sustainable future for wildlife and people Swindon Water for Wildlife Project Lessons Learnt
•Project management is essential •Good contractors •Extensive public consultation is key •Continued support •Always allow a contingency for everything!
A sustainable future for wildlife and people Swindon Water for Wildlife Project Good project management and Team working are Key to success!
A sustainable future for wildlife and people