Eddleston Water Project: introduction to research aims & monitoring

Partnership project, begun in 2009

Eddleston Water: Environment Agency

• Eddleston Water scoping study

• Eddleston Water restoration Phase II HNS NFU(S) • Eddleston Water restoration Phase III Tweed Foundation

Forest Research

Cbec Ltd

Chris Spray, Alan Werritty, Tom Ball, Andrew Black, Michael Bonell, Nicole Archer & students Eddleston Water catchment – 69 sq km

• Main river flows c 17 kms North-South in to the Tweed at Peebles

• Largely rural with two settlements – Eddleston and Peebles

• Long history of river and flood plain management – for agriculture mainly – and of flooding (1723, 1777, 1792, 1831, 1846, 1865, 1881, 1891, 1897, 1908, 1914, 1926, 1948, 1956, 1977, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1997, 2000, 2005)

• EU Conservation status as SAC for Ranunculus type river, and Atlantic Salmon, Lampreys and Otters. SSSI interest also on beetles of riverine gravels

• Fails WFD status for Morphology (bad) and for aquatic macrophytes (moderate) Policy drivers for river restoration: Eddleston Water

Two main policy drivers: • EC Water Framework Directive => Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003: Eddleston Water characterised as having “poor” ecological status • EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of Floods => Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: section 20 requires SEPA to assess whether the “alteration ... or restoration of natural features and characteristics ... could contribute to management of flood risk” often referred to as natural flood management Plus an over-riding Total Catchment Approach => added multiple benefits for other ecosystem services – water quality, fisheries, biodiversity, recreation & tourism, etc

AND the question of stakeholders “permission to act” Eddleston Water Project – initial scoping report 2010

Looked at the whole catchment, not just flooding and habitats solely along the river Output Recommendations: • Characterisation of the catchment • Locations and plans for physical restoration of channel and floodplain • Locations and plans for interventions to achieve flood risk reductions • Value for money and priorities for action • Detailed monitoring • Community consultation and engagement Characterisation and current status: landscapes, habitats, ecology.

Sources

Pathways Proposed measures: locations and types

Selected groups of measures: A: breach/set back embankments, new fence margins, riparian woodland, wet woodland, large woody debris C: re-meander channel, riparian woodland L: Reduced stocking density, tributary woodland, floodplain forest N: create ponds, wetlands, riparian woodland block ditches, large woody debris Natural flood management: - Influencing “sources” by intervention in the upper catchment, tributaries and hill slopes

Planting up hillsides & river banks Log jams on tributaries Working with Forestry Commission Natural flood management: Influencing “pathways” by interventions in the floodplain itself

Breach in embankments could permit temporary flood storage on left bank during high flow events.

Re-meandering opportunities - Cringeltie

Intensive monitoring programme Proposed measures: flood storage u/s Eddleston (site A) Natural flood management: - Understanding the connectivity between hill-slopes, groundwater, floodplains and rivers

BGS and Dundee University joint study Unique integrated hillslope-to-floodplain study Opportunities, constraints and barriers

• Interviews with key stakeholders: Scottish Govt, SEPA, Tweed Forum, Scottish Borders Council, SNH, Tweed Foundation, Scottish Water, NFU(Scotland), Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Country Landowners Business Association.

• Interviews with landowners (three floodplain and two upland famers) middle-aged, male, long-term landowners in the valley (>30 years) with several sources of income. • Literature review

Josselin Rouillard Opportunities, constraints and barriers: farmers

• local expert knowledge must be factored in to any planning; • financial incentives must be set at the right level – to sustain farm units and to attract engagement; • long-term, guaranteed contractual arrangements to deliver focused outcomes; • simplicity in any contractual arrangements. Summary: - Aims & Objectives of Monitoring Strategy

Aim: to assess the effectiveness of the proposed measures for restoration and natural flood management

Existing Monitoring programmes: - provided elements of the original Characterisation and baseline data • Hydrometric monitoring – Shiplaw and March street; and Shiplaw rain gauge • Landuse and habitat data – from aerial surveys done for SBC • Water quality, ecology and fisheries data – for WFD water body compliance Augmented and New Monitoring Networks: - • Surface water monitoring • Rainfall and weather • Groundwater monitoring • Hydro-geomorphology • Detailed invertebrate, macrophyte, fishery, mammals. Bio-physical Monitoring Strategy: Two levels:

Aim - to assess changes in condition of key environmental aspects of the catchment over time, and in relation to the impact of different intervention techniques employed at specific locations - so as to assess effectiveness of measures (include financial elements also)

(a) Catchment wide Quantifying flood hydrographs, flows, Water body and WFD statutory requirements for measuring ‘Ecological status’; and Site Condition Monitoring for SAC and SSSI ‘features’ (species & habitats) (a) Individual Interventions Quantifying the state of targeted environmental variables before and after ‘interventions’ (re-meandering, flood plain forest, engineered log jams, etc.), and in appropriate control situations. Understanding the impact of changes on current land use

Current land use and straightened course of the river:

Current farming in the flood plain is predominantly improved grass, and cut for silage

Eddleston Water was severely straightened, embanked and shortened (c.30%) at the end of the 18th Century – to improve transport and agricultural production A potential projected (modelled) flood regulation land use scenario

Flood risk regulation scenario:

Farming in the floodplain is replaced by Wet Valley Woodland - max flood retention & high Mannings ‘n’

River course has now been “re- meandered”, based on course of the old river pre- intervention (from old maps) and embankments “removed” Results: Ecosystem service scores

Flood regulation enhanced:  Food and timber provisioning services reduced  Other services also increased in new scenario: Eddleston Water - detailed monitoring of a typical pilot catchment – for testing interventions and models Partnership Approach Integrated Monitoring networks & engagement: River flow gauges Ground water surveys and boreholes Rainfall and weather stations River habitats and hydromorphology River biology – fish, plants, invertebrates Land-owner & community engagement Ecosystem services initiative Eddleston Hydrometric Monitoring

Chris Spray Andrew Black Tom Ball University of Dundee

Photo © BGS Hydrometric monitoring objectives • Characterise baseline hydrological response • Assess hydrological effect of measures • In practice: – Travel times – Quickflow response – Baseflow response – Total runoff volumes Hydrometric network • 13 gauging stations • 4 rainfall sites • 1 AWS • Bohehole clusters Monitoring technologies Principles & practice in NFM monitoring • Suggested principles: – Establish the baseline before implementing measures. 2 years baseline is recommended. – Select monitoring sites carefully - site selection affects data accuracy. – Aim to maximise accuracy: it's vital that uncertainty in data collection < magnitude of the change you're trying to detect – Monitor as comprehensively as possible from the outset: level, flow, rain, water temperature, stable isotopes.....? Aspects of practice

• Water level recorder siting - much to consider! – Safe access/operations – Suitable location for the intended purpose – Sensitivity of level to flow – Control stability – Can full range of levels be recorded? – Avoidance of impact risks arising from entrained debris – Avoidance of waterfalls: severe hysteresis effects – Viable flow gauging opportunities – Proximity of vehicle access – Not visible or vulnerable to potential vandals – etc etc Aspects of practice

• Level recording: Hobo U2O in secure steel wells Aspects of practice

• SonTek ADV for mid-range flow measurement • Ott C-2 for shallow flows • Or Valeport 802 Aspects of practice

• ADCP for high flow measurement • Performance depends on water surface conditions Aspects of practice

• Use of floats for validating velocities in peak flows Aspects of practice

• Boreholoe network: surface water- groundwater interactions Aspects of practice

• Non-contact methods for velocity measurement – proposals for future: Ott Kalesto-V or Sommer RQ-30 Aspects of practice

• Time lapse photography, whether via telemetry or not…

Compementary to the stream level time series: surface saturation and ponding: foreground and in distance on both flood plains (and before the stream rises: hourly pics, 31.1.13)

Aspects of practice

• Time lapse photography, whether via telemetry or not (cost)

Also recommended: supplementary pics; inexpensive but effective, non telemetry Aspects of practice

• Campbell CR1000, 3G modem, Campbell LoggerNet + RTMC Webserver Aspects of practice: gauging strategy: being there at the right time

ADCP: peak of 2nd- highest event in 22 years of record

Single visit: well worth staying on site in major peak rather than moving to next site Aspects of practice

• TBR pulse counter loggers: suspected power pack issues. • Staffing for high flow gaugings • Real-time prediction of stream flows • Also, raingauge siting issues (exposure) Eddleston Water: Use of the stream gauging network in hydrological modelling Tributary assessments, sources, integration

Tom Ball, Andrew Black, Josh Arnott, Ken Samson, Stanislav Ruman Surface DEM Use of landcover information to inform surface parameterisation Measured Hydrographs from August 10-12 2011 Event

Results Modelling potential effects of tributary NFM Interventions Examining potential effects of tributary NFM Interventions

1. Middle Burn Flow restrictors 2. Longcote Burn Floodplain afforestation Channel survey using dGPS Run based on actual flow data August 10-12 2011 (peak observed h - 269.98)

Plan: Plan 02 River: Middle Burn Reach: 2 RS: 2 0.6 0.6 Legend

Flow

0.5

0.4

0.3 Flow(m3/s) Flow(m3/s)

0.2

0.1

0.0 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 10Aug2011 11Aug2011 12Aug2011 Time August 11 2011 event – flow decoupling example Intervention Junction 1 flow Junction 2 flow Junction 3 (main on (m3/ s) (m3/ s) stem) flow (m3/ s)

Control 1.56 2.28 3.32 (none) Middle 1.52 2.22 3.25

Middle + 1.55 2.23 3.25 Cowieslinn Middle + 1.52 2.23 3.25 Shiplaw Middle + 1.55 2.27 3.28 Cowieslinn + Shiplaw Mid + Cowies 1.52 2.24 3.27 + Shiplaw + Northern Part Intervention Junction 1 flow Junction 2 flow Junction 3 (main on (m3/ s) (m3/ s) stem) flow (m3/ s)

Control 05:45 05:55 05:55 (none) Middle 06:30 06:25 06:15

Middle + 06:45 06:45 06:40 Cowieslinn Middle + 06:30 06:50 06:40 Shiplaw Middle + 06:45 07:00 06:55 Cowieslinn + Shiplaw Mid + Cowies 06:45 07:00 06:55 + Shiplaw + Northern Part