Restoring the Transitional River Lymington - Painful but Pragmatic Decisions in Water Level Management

Stuart Hedgecott (Halcrow Group Ltd) & Karen McHugh (Environment Agency) Acknowledgements to Nikki Hiorns (Natural England), John Durnell & Michael Boxall (Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust) Summary of Presentation

• Describe the prevailing conditions on the upper estuary of the Lymington River, Hampshire • Outline how human intervention has moulded the upper estuary, & how we anticipate it will continue to do so • Summarise the rationale & proposals for controlled re-naturalisation of hydromorphological conditions Historical Evolution of Present-Day Hydromorphological Conditions • Lymington River is one of main rivers of New Forest • Lymington River reedbeds situated in upper part of Lymington estuary • Separated from main (seaward) estuary by causeway, originally built in 1731 • Reedbeds established after causeway modified to exclude high tides from the area, end of 19th Century • Now >30 hectares reedbed extending inland for c.2km Nature Conservation Interests of Lymington Reedbed • Reedbed is main part of an SSSI (also includes 11Ha of woodland & grazing marsh), designated 1978 • Principal interest features –nesting (Cetti’s warbler, bearded tit) & roosting (martins, swallow, yellow wagtail) birds • Other significant species - reed warbler, water rail, otter, water vole • At transition between river & “true” estuary - so also important for migratory fish (sea trout, eel, lamprey) Current Nature Conservation Status

• All reedbeds are transient succession habitats • Access for management prevented for several years by high water levels • Reed density & quality are declining, breeding & roosting birds are declining • 50.1% of the SSSI is “unfavourable declining” with a “very high water table” identified as a key problem • Entire river is also SSSI, [primarily because of rapid physical transition from upland to lowland character], but overall condition not significantly affected by water levels across the reedbed Water Level Management Plan Review • WLMP required where control structures influence water levels on a sensitive SSSI • Prescribe water level regime to maintain or improve nature conservation interest of SSSI, considering also flood defence, agriculture, fisheries, recreation, water supply • For Lymington, focus on how to manipulate fluvial and tidal levels • Focus on culvert structures under the causeway, installed to prevent tidal flooding of Lymington via the upper estuary Lymington Reedbed WLMP Review • Considered fluvial conditions & tidal conditions • Hydraulic modelling concluded that existing water levels across reedbeds dominated by tide Exacerbated by rising sea levels – 4mm/y rising to 15mm/y this century • No modified management of structures will deliver lower winter water levels required for management

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 )

S 0.4 P

G 0.2 m (

l 0 e v

e -0.2 L

r -0.4 e t a -0.6 W -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------r r r r r b b b a a a p p e e e A A F F F M M M Date

Tidal Data 2003/04 from 15/02/03 Western culvert opened equivalent to 2 eastern flaps Base Case So What Options Remain? • Do nothing – reedbed will continue to decline • Do minimum – resource requirement for alternative management options is not sustainable • Allow a more naturalised & dynamic system to develop – some tidal inundation to allow the development of inter-tidal habitats • Could support species associated with the Solent & Southampton Water Special Protection Area, designated for its coastal birds (terns, gulls, waders and wildfowl) The Current Proposal Being Assessed • Restoration of partial tidal conditions within SSSI by manipulating control structures under causeway • To promote the conservation interests of the SPA & Ramsar Site • To create new brackish water / inter-tidal habitat which may be designated as SSSI for new interest features • Recognises loss of existing SSSI features, but this (a) acceleration rather than a new effect, & (b) investigating potential for establishing new areas of reedbed further up the valley Feasibility Investigations – Issues • As well as engineering / economic feasibility, assessment of effects on SSSI habitats & interest features (reedbed & river), need to consider: – Tidal flood risk – Landscape – within New Forest National Park – Public water supply – River water quality – Land use (landward of causeway) & estuary use (seaward of causeway) Feasibility & Implementation – Uncertainties & Risks • Rate / extent of habitat evolution • Planning needs • Saline intrusion – known & potential effects • Secondary effects –increased currents & tidal prism • Trial implementation,

2 Boldre Bridge phased, reversible Toll Bridge Ampress Site 1 0.42m AOD

) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 D • Monitoring begun in O

A 0.33 m AOD -1 m ( l e v e L -2 advance, to ensure -3 understanding of changes -4 Chainage (m)

Q95 flow, mean neap tide Q95 flow, mean spring tide Bed level

Summary – Difficult but Pragmatic Decisions • Problem - existing hydromorophological conditions not sustainable, existing nature conservation interests will disappear in the long-term – Solution - Actively seeking to maintain nature conservation value, through an appropriate degree of re-naturalisation • Problem - knowledge of how the system will behave is incomplete because it is unique & complex – Solution – Progress a solution that is both step-wise & reversible, with an appropriate monitoring programme to support decision making Demonstrating STrategic REstoration And Management- Concept to construction

Jenny Wheeldon- Project Manager River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA Background

2003 Life in UK rivers: Avon conservation strategy actions

• measures to reduce diffuse pollution

• Restoration of river & floodplain and linking management

• problem species inc. invasive plants

• communication with key river managers

• accessibility/community involvement

• SUBSTANTIAL £ - LIFE Nature and HLF collaborative projects Demonstrating Strategic Restoration And Management

£1 million LIFE Nature project centred on the River Avon and the Avon Valley

• Demonstrate and monitor river restoration at six sites

• Link river and floodplain management

• Share best practice

• Linked to Living River Managing the partnership

Changes to structure of partner organisations

2004/5 2006 2007+ Lead partner English Nature English Nature/Natural England Natural England Flood risk management Operations Environment Flood defence Agency (design) NCPMS delivery

• Protect against organisational change – in the bid & during

• Divide time critical work between in-house and consultancy staff

• Ensure “minor” partners are fully committed Constraints

• Investment in planning V risk of bid failure

• Site info minimal

• Funders dislike monitoring

• Reality bites e.g water voles, lack of gravel, archaeology, bridge footings etc

• Money spent developing the bid is well spent – acts as a catalyst regardless of outcome Early consultation and planning

Who What How long (months) Environment Flood risk assessment 2 – 6 Agency Enviro. impact assessment 3 – 6 Impoundment licence 3 – 6 Transfer licence 1 – 4 Land Drainage consent 3 Appendix 11 3 Waste exemption 3 Planners Planning permission/EIA 4 - ? Forestry Felling licence 3 commission Early consultation and planning

• Flood risk assessment

Proportionate e.g none → conveyance estimation → full model

• Waste management and licences

Choice of materials and working methods key e.g certified recycled aggregate can be reused on site

• Protected species Identify in advance and minimise impacts in design e.g minimise footprint of structures for water voles Early consultation and planning

• Landscape and archaeology

Identify in advance of design and minimise impact e.g landscape architect and public meeting for tree works

• EIA and planning permission Permitted development may not apply New area for local planners e.g site visits to see previous work, examples of other projects

• Rural payments and agri environment schemes Provide info for landowners to submit Early consultation and planning

Environmental specialists can (should?) lead design

Get to know the consents – design out issues where possible

Good communication with local planners and EA is crucial Procurement and costs

• Engineers are your friends! Specialist contract management required

• Contractors Existing framework contractors +/- European tendering rules

• Step change in costs site facilities, supervision, health and safety files, reinstatement Construction

• Translating drawings into reality

New for contractors/ EA staff Close supervision required

• Landowner/manager input

Potential to add delays/cost Agree and manage input

• Technical challenges e.g protecting water quality when placing gravel Communication

Make project information locally available e.g parish magazines

Hold meetings to allow local people to ask questions

Be sure of your rationale for all aspects – provide evidence

Be proactive about getting positive publicity

Circulate briefings notes with likely questions and answers to all partners

Hold open days for locals after work is done Story so far and future plans

• Salmon and trout spawning on new gravel

• Improvement in sediment quality and plant community

• Increase in local EA workforce skills and interest level

• Nominated as good river restoration LIFE project example

• Approach to linking river and floodplain management trialled on other catchments successfully

• Seminars, open days and conference workshops (RRC 09)

• Publications on website and in RRC manual Restoration techniques Hatch operation protocols www.streamlife.org.uk [email protected]

www.livingriver.org.uk [email protected] Inter-tidal Habitat Restoration Camel Estuary Cornwall

Suchgoodphotos.co.uk ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

INTERTIDAL HABITAT CREATION HIGHER LEVEL SCHEME

Feasibility Design Construction EA roles h Landowner liaison h Public consultation h Project team with Natural England h Principle contractor h Interpretation and access improvements LIDAR LEVEL DATA MODELLING FLOODING POSSIBILITIES The fun bit - Construction

The Grand Opening

The Results

Erosion Problems

Access Improvements Guided Walks Suchgoodphotos.co.uk Suchgoodphotos.co.uk Wildlife monitoring with local groups

Photo by Adrian Langdon images-naturally.co.uk/ Monitoring Sedimentation Rates, Salinity and Creek Migration Photo by Adrian Langdon images-naturally.co.uk/ Changes in land use and management – a passing fashion or a solution to flood risk management? Deirdre Murphy Ripon Project Manager Background

 Review of the impacts of rural land use and management on flood generation  Making Space for Water  Ripon Multi-objective Project (MOP)

Ripon multi-objective project Aim  To investigate the potential for delivering flood risk management through land use and land management changes at a catchment scale while also pursuing resource protection, biodiversity and access opportunities. Outcomes  Observations and monitoring of baseline  Catchment modelling – floodplain woodland, sensitivity testing  Impact of agricultural and rural policy on land management  Lessons learned report  See full range of outputs at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/Wetlands/riponmop.htm In the meantime…  Defra / EA flood management research programme  Making Space for Water  Innovation fund £1.5m over 3 years  ScAMP  Analysis of historical datasets Has the land use argument been won?  Yes, but…  Need to of mindful of limitations  Evidence still not available  Much is anticipated from land management  A wide range of organisations are now promoting land use and management changes

Promoting change  England woodland strategy – mentions the role of woodland in managing flood risk  Forestry Commission regional strategies  National Trust –’Towards sustainable land management’, ‘Nature’s capital investing in the nation’s natural assets’  Pitt Review – re-iterates MSfW – ‘greater use of washlands and wetlands, …reconnection of rivers with their floodplains can all help to ...reduce flooding d/s and mitigate peak flows’

Environmental Stewardship – the golden goose (alas no golden eggs)  Flood management a secondary target in original scheme  ES Review – late 2007  Expectations beyond what could be delivered  Careful targeting of options especially resource protection options would help  Need to be realistic in what can be achieved

Can land use change deliver?  Evidence for catchment scale change not found but still trying to find it  Mechanism for implementation a major constraint  Local levy projects - Northumbria RFDC is supporting a wide range of projects  Need to include options in Catchment Flood Management Plans  Land use and management changes are potentially very expensive and long term options The future  Ongoing R&D  Grassroots appreciation that flood risk management is a complex issue should help when innovative solutions are proposed  Land use and management may be just one part of a flood mitigation solution [email protected] Thankwww.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/Wetlands/riponmop.htm you Joining things up in flood plains 16 April 2008 Tim Hess Integrated Floodplain Management

Aim: To understand processes and dynamics of change (agriculture, biodiversity, water management) in order to inform decisions on sustainable land and water management in lowland floodplains previously engineered for flood defence purposes. Study Sites

 • 8 case study sites in England • Previously subject to land  drainage improvement schemes  1. Cuddyarch Sough  2. R Idle  3. Beckingham Marshes 4. R Morda  5. Semperingham Fen 6. Bushley   7. R Yeo 8. R Rother • Land management surveyed in 1980s

"it's more profitable Farmer Surveys to farm birds than crops" [2006]

"if wheat prices stay this high I will go out of the ES again" [2007]

• Interviews with 67 farmers, largely repeating the 1980s survey • Farm(er) characteristics • Hydrological condition • Farming practices • What have been the drivers of change in land management since 1980s? Water table monitoring & modelling

• Ditch water level & transect of monitored dipwells • Agroclimatic modelling of water table position • 20 year simulation of water table Model validation

Beckingham Marshes, 2007

2.5 200

Ground level 180

160

140 2.0 120 D

O 100 A m 80

1.5 m 60 m , l l a f

40 n i a R 20

1.0 0 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov

rain Observed Modelled Scenarios

1. Maximising farm income 2. Maximising agricultural production 3. Enhance biodiversity within • Seasonal water table regime agricultural systems • Seasonal flood regime 4. Enhance biodiversity without agricultural systems 5. Maximise flood storage 6. Low carbon Water table regimes . L . G w o l e b m

Season Example

Scenario 3 Enhance biodiversity within agricultural systems

This area could be managed as wet pasture (MG13) which would create 419 ha of habitat principally for breeding waders.

Wet Pasture (MG13) Season

Dec - Feb Mar - May Jun - Aug Sept - Nov Days with surface water 60 40 5 30 Mean water table depth, cm 0 10 40 40 Mean flood probability 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.05 Ecosystem functions

• Production function: capacity to provide resources • Regulation function: capacity to regulate essential ecological processes • Carrier function: capacity to provide space for activities and processes • Habitat function: provision of unique habitat for plants and animals • Information function: capacity to contribute to human well-being through knowledge and experience Floodplain uses

• Production • Habitat • Agricultural production • Biodiversity target • Bio-energy crops • Carrier • Coppicing • Transport infrastructure • Reed production • Settlement • Regulation • Industry • Flood water storage • Information • Water quality • Public rights of way • Greenhouse gas balance • Recreation • Atmospheric nitrogen • Cultural heritage emission • Education / research • Water balance • Landscape value • Soil condition • Drainage Stakeholders & values Example: Beckingham Marshes

Function Use Value Stakeholders Production Agricultural Economic gains from Farmers, Defra production (bio-fuel crop & livestock crops) production Regulation Flood water storage, Avoided damage due to EA-FRM, IDB, farmers, drainage flooding local industry, RSPB Habitat Maintenance and Contribution to UK BAP RSPB, OnTrent, Notts’ enhancement of bio- targets WT, local residents diversity Carrier Transport and Living space and Local residents, local settlements revenues local industry industry, farmers, local authority Information Amenity and Open space and public RSPB, local residents, landscape access local authority Stakeholder interests Output indicators

Use Output indicator

Agricultural •Crop (ha), Yield (tonnes ha-1, calories ha-1) production •Livestock type, numbers and ages, stocking rates (LU ha-1), milk production (litres year-1) •Grass yields (MJ ha-1) •Gross margin (£ ha-1 year-1) •Net margin (£ ha-1 year-1) Biodiversity •Habitat (ha) target •Hedgerows (km) •Field margins (km) : Scoring matrix Scenarios Arable Flood Wetlands farming storage

Rapid Rapid Slow drainage, drainage, drainage, low flood high flood high flood frequency frequency frequency Function Use Agricultural H M L Production production Bio-fuel crops H L M Flood water Regulation M H L storage Habitat Biodiversity target L M H Road Carrier H M L network/industry Recreation L L H Information Education L L H

Project team

Ecological Solutions

• Cranfield University: Joe Morris, Tim Hess, Helena Posthumus, Paul Trawick, Quentin Dawson, • Open University: David Gowing, Jim Rouquette, Andy Blowers • River Restoration Centre: Jenny Mant • Ecological Solutions: Graham Tucker FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE

Matt Jones

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE • Partnership Project – Bringing together • Sow & Penk Drainage Board • Staffordshire Wildlife Trust • Environment Agency • Natural England • FWAG • Staffordshire County Council

• Hosted by : Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

• Funded by : Defra – Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Innovation Fund

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Key Aim To determine whether the farmed landscape can be viably managed in ways that effectively reduce flood risk downstream, while at the same time enhancing the natural environment.

• National pilot project • Looking at the practicalities of implementing innovative solutions on the ground • Will inform future policy direction

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Project Area

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Catchment Characteristics

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Key Tributaries

18 Saredon

16 Whiston 14

12 s / 3 m

- 10

w Doxey Meece o l F 8

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time - hrs Relative contribution Tributary Flow peak Volume Saredon 17.0% 15.9% Whiston 14.8% 19.1% Meece 11.0% 12.9% Doxey 9.2% 9.3% FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Potential Projects

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Potential Projects

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Response of Farmers

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Monitoring

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE Conclusions

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE THANK YOU

Matt Jones Wetlands Officer C/o Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

Tel : 01889 880142 Mob : 07970 062320

E-mail : [email protected]

FARMING FLOODPLAINS for the FUTURE