ri ver restoration centre 18 annual network conference...eric gillies (cbec eco-engineering)...

River Restoration Centre

18th Annual Network Conference River Restoration: Addressing Uncertainty

4th – 5th April 2017 – The Hilton Metropole Hotel, Brighton

Kindly sponsored by:

Abstracts

2018

RIVER RESTORATION CENTRE 19TH ANNUAL NETWORK CONFERENCE

"Engaging with Rivers" 24th and 25th April 2018 – EMCC, Nottingham

PROGRAMME OF EVENTS

DAY 1: - - - TUESDAY 24TH APRIL - - -

09:00

REGISTRATION at Reception Opens at 08:30

NETWORKING & EARLY VIEWING POSTER SESSION

in the Exhibition Hall

60 mins

Session 1 Conference Theatre

CHAIR: Martin Janes (the River Restoration Centre)

10:00 River Restoration Centre introduction & welcome Martin Janes (the River Restoration Centre)

15 mins

10:15 Engaging with rivers - restoration in Scotland and New South Wales - a tale of two Tweeds Chris Spray (University of Dundee)

15 mins

10:30 A partnership approach to misconnections in London: the ‘outfall safari’ two years on Joe Pecorelli (The Zoological Society of London)

15 mins

10:45 Discussion 15 mins

11:00 SHORT BREAK with coffee and tea 35 mins

11:35 Handing over design of a major flood relief channel and its surrounds to stakeholders – did it make a difference? Vicky Lutyens (Black & Veatch)

15 mins

11:50 Natural Flood Management: Shaping success through Partnerships Jenny Broomby (JBA Consulting)

15 mins

12:05

Infrastructure development: Opportunities and challenges for managing rivers and their catchments Tom Styles & Oana Iacob (Arup)

15 mins

12:20 Discussion 15 mins

12:35 LUNCH in the Exhibition Hall 60 mins



Session 2

Conference Theatre

Natural Flood Management in Practice

Conference Suite 2

Evidencing Change

Conference Suite 3

Barriers

CHAIR: TBA CHAIR: David Harper (Welland Rivers Trust) CHAIR: Andrew Kerr (the Sustainable Eel

Group)

13:35

NFM: Delivering multiple benefits through Flood Risk Management Alex Fraser (Jacobs) & Sim Reaney (Durham University)

Evaluating river restoration techniques: Settlement ponds in the Afon Eden catchment, North Wales Sue Hearn (Natural Resources Wales) & Heather Marples (Bangor University)

Novel design, installation and assessment of coarse fish passage using Low Cost Baffle (LCB) solution at a gauging station Toby Hull (South East Rivers Trust)

15 mins

13:50

Reducing Flood Risk through Green Infrastructure on the River Soar, Leicester Alex McDonald (Environment Agency)

The Rottal Burn restoration project: Collaborative evidence and impact from River Champions, Research Collaborators (and lots of student projects) Rebecca Wade (Abertay University) & Kelly Ann Dempsey (River South Esk Catchment Partnership)

The impact of weir removal on the foraging and activity of British Bats Sarah Scott (Environment Agency)

15 mins

14:05

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion 10 mins



Session 2 – continued…

14:15

Prioritising restoration and NFM in the River Peffery, Scotland Emma Lewin (Jacobs)

Implementing Flood Risk Management and river restoration to conserve instream habitat for brown trout Natalie Angelopoulos (University of Hull)

New guide to fish passage and screening at Flood Risk Management and land drainage structures based on practical experience Omar Sholi (AECOM)

15 mins

14:30

Do we need an NFM reality check? Eric Gillies (cbec eco-engineering)

Engaging with rivers in four dimensions Lucy Shuker (Thames 21/Cartographer Studios Ltd)

Approaching 10 years on - shedding light on stream daylighting around the world Adam Broadhead (Arup)

15 mins

14:45

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

10 mins

14:55

POSTER SESSION in the Exhibition Hall with tea and coffee

Vote for your top poster (not just your friends!)

45 mins



Session 3

Conference Theatre

Working in Partnership

Conference Suite 2 Managing Sediment

and Pollutants

Conference Suite 3 Novel ways of

using Data

CHAIR: TBA

CHAIR: TBA CHAIR: TBA

15:40

Better Together - How working in partnerships has achieved so much more in Telford's urban catchment Guy Pluckwell (Environment Agency)

Contaminated sediment: Assessing risks in UK rivers Ian Dennis (Royal HaskoningDHV)

Historical studies for informing sustainable river restoration strategies Jennifer Cox (Ricardo/University of Portsmouth)

15 mins

15:55

Towards a wilder River Crane: Benefits of partnership delivery Tom White (London Wildlife Trust)

Managing accumulated sediments: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDM) and Working with Nature (WwN) William Manning (Exo Environmental)

Simple mapping for flood risk and storage Marc Naura (the River Restoration Centre) 15 mins

16:10

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

10 mins




16:20

Living Heritage of the River Don Rachel Walker (Don Catchment Rivers Trust)

Silt management can be easy... why are so many people getting it wrong? Richard Haine (frog environmental)

CatMan: A Natural Capital framework based on whole catchment modelling of land use, asset improvement, diffuse pollution and flood risk Rachelle Ngai (JBA Consulting)

15 mins

16:35

‘Smarter Water Catchments’ in the Evenlode - working in partnership to reduce phosphorus in rivers Jonathan Westlake (Thames Water)

Partnership working in the Sussex Ouse catchment Simon Lohrey (South East Water) & Emily Long (National Trust)

Community Modelling – Shaping the future of London rivers Rosie Nelson (Thames 21)

15 mins

16:50 Discussion Discussion Discussion 10 mins

17:00 SHORT BREAK TO MOVE TO KEYNOTE SESSION 10 mins



Session 4

Conference Theatre

CHAIR: TBA

17:10 Keynote address – Natural Capital Paul Leinster, Professor of Environmental Assessment, Cranfield University

25 mins

17:35 Questions and reflections 20 mins

17:55 Poster competition prizes, final announcements and close Martin Janes (the River Restoration Centre)

5 mins

18:00 END OF DAY 1

19:30 – PRE-DINNER DRINKS RECEPTION

Entrance Foyer &

20:00 – UK RIVER PRIZE AWARDS DINNER Banqueting Suite



DAY 2: - - - WEDNESDAY 25TH APRIL - - -

Registration Opens at 8:30 am

Session 5

9:00 CHOICE OF ONE SITE VISIT OR ONE WORKSHOP 3 h 30 min

Workshop A: A Focus on Floodplains

Key players in floodplain degradation Seb Bentley & George Heritage (AECOM)

Multi-objective floodplain restoration from California, USA Chris Bowles (cbec eco-engineering)

High impact river and floodplain restoration of the Hampshire Avon near Upavon Martijn Antheunisse (Wiltshire Wildlife Trust)

Workshop B: Large Wood in Rivers

The Influence of Large Woody Dams on Sediment Dynamics Matthew McParland (University of Liverpool)

The impact of wood on benthic and hyporheic invertebrates. Chiara Magliozzi (Cranfield University)

Practical Aspects of Using Large Wood in River Restoration & Channel Management David Holland (Salix)

Workshop C: River Restoration for Biodiversity

Restoring Freshwater Mussel Rivers Ceri Gibson (Freshwater Biological Association)

Understanding Historic Change and Using Natural Processes to Inform Future Decision Making Matthew Hemsworth (JBA Consulting)

Workshop D: Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services:

Accounting for Benefits Monetising environmental benefits – three case studies Angus Pettit (JBA Consulting)

What have wetlands ever done for us? David Gasca (Atkins

Workshop E: Managing Sediment already in Rivers

Site visit 1: TBA

Site visit 2: TBA

12:30 LUNCH 65 mins



Session 6

Conference Theatre

Natural Processes and Morphological Adjustment

Conference Suite 2

Approaches to Planning and Implementation

Conference Suite 3

Catchment Scale Thinking

CHAIR: TBA CHAIR: TBA CHAIR: TBA

13:35

The importance of decadal scale morphological change in flood risk management - The Cashen Estuary, County Kerry Claire Barrett-Mold (Black & Veatch)

River Restoration Wipeout Simon Whitton & Di Hammond (Affinity Water)

Improving natural functioning at the catchment scale Louise Webb (Natural England)

15 mins

13:50

Let the river erode! Giving a gravel-bed river back its freedom space… what do you get? Richard Williams (University of Glasgow)

Alien invaders ahead! - Are you watching out for them? Phil Aldous (Thomson Ecology Ltd)

Riverlands - Exploring people's connections to rivers as a catalyst for change Richard Higgs (National Trust)

15 mins

14:05

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion 10 mins




14:15

Sediment and Managed Naturalisation: Results from the Monitoring of Swindale Beck George Heritage (AECOM)

South Calder Water - Challenges in Urban River Restoration Chris Pittner (Peter Brett Associates)

Are we achieving integrated catchment management in practice? Ed Rollason (Durham University)

15 mins

14:30

How do we properly implement the process-based river restoration approach? Hamish Moir (cbec eco-engineering)

Erosion Risk Screening in Engineering Design on Major Infrastructure Projects Helena Parsons (Jacobs)

Network topology: the "missing link" in understanding catchment controls on instream habitats? Eleanore Heasley (Kings College London)

15 mins

14:45 Discussion Discussion Discussion 10 mins

14:55 MOVE TO GRAND FINALE! 10 mins

11



Session 7

Conference Theatre

CHAIR: TBA

15:05 10 Minute Wake-up and Provocation 10 mins

15:15 Incised lowland sand-bed streams in the Netherlands Christian Huising & Maarten Veldhuis (Waterboard Vallei en Veluwe) 15 mins

15:30

Recreating anastomosing streams to restore channel-floodplain connectivity and recover lost habitats and ecosystem services, Mid-West, USA Colin Thorne & Janine Castro (University of Nottingham)

15mins

15:45 Restoring UK catchment scale biodiversity - rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands Stewart Clarke (National Trust)

15 mins

16:00 Questions, Thoughts and Parting Insights 30 mins

16:30 END OF CONFERENCE

with tea and coffee

Day1: Tuesday 24th April

Session 1: Conference Theatre

ENGAGING WITH RIVERS - RESTORATION PRIORITIES IN SCOTLAND AND NEW SOUTH WALES - A TALE OF TWO TWEEDS

C. SPRAY1, L. COMINS2, D. ROBESON2 & T. ALLETSON3 1 University of Dundee, 2 Tweed Forum, 3 Tweed Shire Council, New South Wales

On the face of it, the Tweed in the Scottish Borders and the Tweed in New South Wales might

be expected to have little in common, other than possible ancient claims of historic

connectivity. However, what began as an idle moment of web-based curiosity has developed

in to a real partnership between two key organisations involved in promoting and

implementing sustainable management of their respective catchments over 16,000 km apart.

Growing realisation that Tweed Shire Council in New South Wales (NSW) and Tweed Forum

in Scotland shared many challenges when it came to river and catchment management was

further strengthened by discovery that they had both developed innovative approaches to

meeting them. This led to further communication and, eventually to two visits to Australia

hosted by Tweed Shire Council (Tom Alletson) - in 2016 (Derek Robeson) and 2017 (Luke

Comins and Chris Spray).

In this presentation we report on the comparative river management challenges facing the

local communities and institutions in the two locations. We explore the importance of

stakeholder engagement and the different governance mechanisms in place, we describe the

approaches developed towards river restoration and we showcase examples of action on the

ground in Australia and Scotland.

The dominant land uses of the two Tweed catchments, present and past, frame the current

approaches to river management and restoration initiatives. Forestry and farming, especially

sugar cane (NSW), sheep and barley (Scotland) are important drivers when it comes to

decision-making on river management. Whilst flood risk has always been part of the

background to decisions on farming practices and indeed settlement locations, recently the

increasing threats of major floods has added a new dimension to thoughts of catchment

management and flood risk reduction. At the same time, the loss of riverine biodiversity is

becoming ever more apparent, alongside the encroachment of invasive non-native species.

Challenges of economic and agricultural productivity remain, as does the need to engage with

local communities in the development of solutions.

We describe the development of approaches by the two organisations to increased

stakeholder engagement across different facets of river life and management. We place river

restoration centrally in this discussion, drawing out comparative barriers and solutions from

the two locations, with examples of ongoing programmes and successes in each catchment.

Finally, we look at what general lessons could be learned by others from our experiences.

A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO MISCONNECTIONS IN LONDON: THE ‘OUTFALL SAFARI’ TWO YEARS ON

J. PECORELLI1 & J. BRYDEN2 1 The Zoological Society of London, 2 Thames21

Within the Greater London Authority boundary there are 600km of rivers and stream

comprising of 39 rivers, of which, so far, only one has been classified as achieving ‘good’

ecological potential under the Water Framework Directive.

One of the major threats to water quality in these rivers is misconnections that send foul

waste to rivers via the surface water drainage system. Misconnections have been cited by the

Environment Agency as one of the reasons for waterbodies in London not achieving “good”

ecological status (or potential) and could contribute to failing phosphate levels. This is not the

only way that surface water outfalls convey pollution to our rivers. Blockages in the foul

sewers, caused for example by a build-up of fat or wet wipes, can also pollute rivers by causing

foul wastewater to back up in the sewers and drain into the surface water network and then

to rivers. Poorly designed or dilapidated sewer infrastructure can also allow foul waste to

enter surface water pipes.

In recent years, there has been no systematic surveying of outfalls to identify and report

pollution problems to the Environment Agency and Thames Water. ZSL, working in

partnership with fellow NGO’s, Thames Water, the Environment Agency and communities

across London, has developed an innovative, citizen science technique for locating, reporting

and prioritising polluted outfalls and gathering further evidence on the scale of the problem.

Known as the Outfall Safari, the survey method is devised to fill the evidence gathering and

reporting gap. An Outfall Safari involves training teams of volunteers how to assess outfalls

for pollution. Once trained, volunteers conduct coordinated surveys, walking the riverbanks

in groups, armed with a specially created app that allows them to geolocate, photograph and

assess outfalls for evidence of pollution, including sewage fungus, sanitary products and

discoloured water.

Between May 2016 and November 2017, 142km of river were surveyed in Greater London

and 1,177 outfalls assessed of which 356 showed signs of pollution.

Thames Water is responsible for the majority of outfalls in Greater London; the remainder are

Highways Agency, Local Authority or privately owned. This presentation will show the findings

of the Outfall Safaris, the response by Thames Water and other stakeholders to the data

generated and how the method has been adapted and applied to other catchments outside

London. We will also present thoughts on what other measures need to be adopted to tackle

misconnections, a serious problem that blights urban rivers across the UK.

For more information, www.zsl.org/londons-rivers

HANDING OVER DESIGN OF A MAJOR FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL AND ITS SURROUNDS TO STAKEHOLDERS – DID IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

V. LUTYENS1 1 Black & Veatch

The River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) is one of the UKs largest flood risk

management schemes of recent years. It will reduce flood risk to 15,000 homes and

businesses and involves construction of a 17km long major flood relief channel through west

London plus associated measures. Black & Veatch is leading outline design for the

Environment Agency and partners.

A deliberative approach was adopted to engage with the wide variety of stakeholders,

including authorities, user groups, conservation bodies and landowners. This paper discusses

how, through a series of meetings, stakeholders suggested 100s of enhancement

opportunities that were captured in the design of the channel and surrounding landscape. It

will summarise how: a) design suggestions from stakeholders were incorporated and shaped

a vision that linked the history of the River Thames with the functionality of the scheme; b)

consultees were able to influence areas of uncertainty.

Specific examples will be shown of design areas that were influenced by engagement, in

particular:

Channel alignment in areas of design uncertainty (including at sites of high nature

conservation importance and archaeological sensitivity)

10km of new public access adjacent to the proposed channel

The four large-scale Landscape Enhancement Areas, and their ‘beacon concept’ providing

long range views across the floodplain

The 100 ha+ of water dependant habitat creation at two large sites

The presentation will conclude by summarising some of the challenges faced in opening

up design to multiple voices (technical, legal, and financial), and the next steps in taking

forward proposals

NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT: SHAPING SUCCESS THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS

J. BROOMBY1 1 JBA Consulting & University of Leeds

The recent paradigm shift away from traditional flood defence to more holistic approaches

such as natural flood management (NFM) and catchment management has stimulated a

discussion regarding the means by which such measures can be successfully implemented.

Working with Natural Processes (WWNP), defined by the Environment Agency as “taking

action to manage fluvial and coastal flood and coastal erosion risk by protecting, restoring

and emulating the natural regulating function of catchments, rivers, floodplains and coasts”,

often requires work across whole catchment areas as well as across a wide set of participants

and skills. Partnerships are increasingly seen as a necessary method of tackling complex,

multi-level and multi-scalar issues, such as flooding, catchment management, habitat

enhancement and river restoration.

This study explored partnership working in WWNP schemes across the UK, focusing on the

factors that impact and shape success, drawing awareness to their experiences and allowing

future partnerships to learn from past projects. Whilst the role of individual contexts is

important to consider, there were a number of commonalities identified across 60 NFM

documented case studies, including schemes such as Holnicote, Pickering, Haweswater,

Belford, Blackbrook, Stroud Rural SuDS and Haltwhistle, which could provide valuable

guidance for future NFM partnerships and initiatives.

Local communities, landownership and the evidence gap are examples of factors that can

both drive a partnership as well as act as a barrier to progress. Other factors that drive and

enable the creation of partnerships are project champions; pre-existing relationships

between partner organisations; a common vision; local organisations; authorities and

democratically-elected project officials; the use of trial catchments; and the role of neutral

agents such as NGOs and academic institutions. In addition, during a partnership, the

incorporation of local knowledge, clear governance structures and a common vision between

partners further contribute to the success of the project overall. These factors determine the

levels of proximity within a partnership, which, in its 6 different forms (physical, spatial,

institutional, social, technological and relational), is crucial to the success of a project and

must be addressed both prior to and during a partnership to ensure as smooth and equitable

a process as possible.

The application of partnership working to NFM is relatively recent and unique, with little

academic research conducted to date. This work provides some practical guidance to NFM

and river restoration initiatives as well as contributing to this burgeoning area of research.

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR

MANAGING RIVERS AND THEIR CATCHMENTS

T. STYLES1 & O. IACOB1

1 Arup

Flagship river and catchment management projects in the UK are typically focused on

environmental and local community outcomes, and are often constrained by scarce funding

and limited resources. Against this, the UK is in the middle of an infrastructure boom, with

HS2, Crossrail, Thames Tideway and Hinkley Point for example having a combined cost

potentially reaching £100 bn. In addition, thousands of miles of road and railway are built or

upgraded each year, hundreds of thousands of houses and millions of square meters of

commercial space constructed.

This contribution to the conference proposes that in addition to stand-alone river restoration

or catchment management projects, the application of innovative management techniques

on watercourses and catchments associated with infrastructure projects can, in aggregate,

unlock significant multifunctional benefits associated with traditional river restoration

schemes. By challenging the status-quo, actors in these projects can bring their influence to

bear on realising tangible and significant environmental enhancements, by looking beyond

mitigation and creatively identifying opportunities for the environment and society at

negative or low marginal cost for the scheme funder, most particularly when maintenance is

considered.

This presentation seeks to explore the balance of constraints and opportunities in this context

and provoke debate on how opportunities can be better realised. This will be undertaken

through an analysis of drivers for innovative and sustainable river and catchment

management as they currently exist across regulation, reputation and the influence of

stakeholders. Constraints and barriers to these approaches will also be examined and

consideration given as to how these might be overcome.

These points will be illustrated through the use of case study projects that the presenters

have personally worked on which draw on a range of experiences across sectors and client

types, and with varying degrees of influence.

Brief examination will also be given as to the range of future scenarios, and the new

challenges and opportunities presented through seismic shifts such as Brexit, in terms of

funding for infrastructure investment and regulatory context that may determine potential

for realising environmental benefits through infrastructure projects.

Session 2: Parallel Sessions Conference Theatre: Natural Flood Management in Practice

NFM: DELIVERING MULTIPLE BENEFITS THROUGH FLOOD RISK

MANAGEMENT

A. FRASER1 & S. REANEY2 1 Jacobs, 2 Durham University

The impact of flooding throughout the United Kingdom is significant and the financial burden

felt by individuals, communities and Government. Many flood alleviations schemes use hard

engineered approaches providing high standards of protection but do not address the root of

flood risk. The financial costs of these schemes cannot always be justified using the current

cost-benefit criteria. Furthermore, the delivery of these schemes can have significant negative

impacts upon river systems. Justifying the need to investigate sustainable, lower-cost

initiatives that can be delivered more holistically and sustainably. Natural Flood Risk

Management (NFM) is an area of great interest for this reason by supporting flood risk

reduction at a catchment scale as well as providing opportunity to deliver multiple benefits

to the catchment.

Durham University used two complementary approaches to appraising potential:

1. Rapid connectivity and risk mapping assessment (SCIMAP-Flood)

2. Detailed physically based, fully spatially distributed, simulation of catchment hydrology

(CRUM3)

Combining, these methods provides a powerful toolkit to target interventions within the

catchment and simulate potential impact on flood peak through a variety of NFM

interventions. Rapid risk mapping identifies the areas at greatest risk of generating overland

flow, a key factor in flood risk generation in rural catchments. The detailed simulation of

catchment hydrology provided by CRUM3 then provides a mechanism by which these

targeted interventions can impact upon flood peak reduction. Fraser (2017) found that

targeted interventions using SCIMAP-Flood yielded more efficient reductions in peak flow

compared to other targeting techniques. Additionally, as sediment transfer and diffuse

pollution are synonymous with overland flow by targeting interventions that intercept

overland flow or reduce its connectivity to the watercourse it is possible to achieve Water

Framework Directive benefits.

A variety of flood mitigation strategies were investigated; including land cover change, Large

Woody Debris (LWD) dams and spatially targeted attenuation. LWD offered the most efficient

peak flow reduction particularly when combined with spatially distributed attenuation.

REDUCING FLOOD RISK THROUGH GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE RIVER SOAR, LEICESTER

A. McDONALD1, H. O’BRIEN2 & R. NEEDHAM3 1 Environment Agency, 2 Leicester City Council, 3 Trent Rivers Trust

Leicester is a city of high flood risk whilst the River Soar and tributaries running through the

city suffer from diffuse pollution and physical modification. The Environment Agency &

Leicester City Council are working in partnership alongside the Soar Catchment Partnership

to solve this. Through tackling flood risk as a blocker to regeneration we’ve been able to

deliver schemes that improve the environmental, social and economic value of the river

corridor whist improving community ownership.

The Leicester conveyance scheme targeted underused public open space of low ecological

value. By reconnecting the river with its floodplain more opportunity for wetland species was

created. Solutions to flood risk were designed that incorporated pockets of natural habitats

to help to build more diverse and resilient ecological communities.

Improvements include a large wetland at Ellis Meadows linked to the River Soar. The area was

designed to have a permanent area of water to benefit aquatic invertebrates and amphibians.

The fringes of the wetland have been planted with species that can tolerate a range of water

levels, providing cover throughout the year. When water levels are low, mud will be exposed

providing foraging areas for waterfowl. Since its creation, grey heron and little egret have

been regularly seen along with an abundance of different types of dragonflies and bats are

regularly seen foraging over the wider habitat network. The connection with the River Soar

allows the area to function as a fish refuge helping to sustain fish populations in the main river

should a flood event occur. In total 1.5Ha of wetland habitat along the river corridor has been

created.

The new wetland area incorporates a series of boardwalks, providing interest and accessibility

to the new habitat created through the scheme. A series of information boards have been

included to raise awareness of environmental issues such as flooding and provide information

about the wildlife and plant species present. Usage of the public open space has increased

and the area is being used by schools as an outside classroom.

Scrapes within the floodplain improve the habitat interest. The scheme has also incorporated

a programme of Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam control in places along the river

corridor, aiding the establishment of more native marginal vegetation. In total around 100

trees and 7000 shrubs have been planted improving the foraging habitat available for the

local badger populations. 1 Ha of wild flower meadow has been created which will help to

support pollinators within the urban area. Bee posts and bat boxes provide additional

features and the mitigation badger sett is very well used.

This talk will cover how working in partnership, green infrastructure was put at the heart of a

flood scheme, the benefits seen to urban regeneration and the local community as well as

the ecology of the area.

PRIORITISING RESTORATION AND NFM IN THE RIVER PEFFERY, SCOTLAND E. J. T. LEWIN1 & H. REID2

1 Jacobs, 2 SEPA

SEPA’s Morphological Impact Assessment System (MImAS) tool, uses a series of spatial

datasets and impact ratings to determine the morphological status of a waterbody to assign

a Water Framework Direct (WFD) classification. MImAS has been used during the planning

stage of the Dingwall Flood Protection Scheme (FPS) commissioned by The Highland Council,

to develop a FPS for Dingwall and Blairninich, Scottish Highlands. The project aims to reduce

flood risk at Dingwall through both conventional and Natural Flood Management methods.

MImAS datasets were used with field observations to split the Peffery into a series of reaches.

Calculations were then applied to identify the reaches and pressures causing a reduction in

WFD status. The assessment was then used to give a score for a range of aspects, including

overall status of the waterbody, status of each reach and to highlight the impacts of different

pressures. These scores quickly identified the locations of specific pressures within the

catchment that are impacting on the morphological status of the Peffery. The outputs were

then used to prioritise the locations and types of restoration works, focusing on reaches

where improvements would make the greatest impact on morphological quality. High level

restoration options focusing on in-channel and floodplain NFM measures have then been

presented for each reach and modelled to quantify their impact on downstream flood risk.

The project aims to combine these restoration measures to reduce downstream flood risk

through further work.

MImAS has been successfully used to quickly highlight key areas in which to focus restoration

measures to improve morphological quality. MImAS and its associated datasets provide a

wealth of baseline information at a catchment scale for all WFD baseline waterbodies in

Scotland. They are useful not only for catchment scale restoration planning but a range of

geomorphological and ecological assessments. The tool robustly quantifies expert judgement,

allowing effective and rapid prioritisation of restoration measures at the catchment-scale.

While the MImAS output is extremely useful for indicating where to work in a catchment, it

should always be ‘sense-checked’ in the field to ensure that outputs are consistent with the

‘real-world’ morphological quality. Moreover, this allows restoration measures to be

designed to specifically tackle the geomorphic characteristics of degradation at a point. Could

a similar integrated dataset be collated for English and Welsh rivers as Fluvial Audits are

undertaken for projects? Could these be stored in an accessible online database and accessed

for other projects? This would allow us to rapidly assess 1) the distribution of river types and

their likely resilience to pressures, 2) the intensity of anthropogenic impacts at different

locations within catchments and 3) work out swiftly where we need to concentrate our efforts

and assess geomorphic condition and restoration options in more detail.

DO WE NEED AN NFM REALITY CHECK? E. GILLIES1, H. MOIR2 & L. CAMELO3

1 cbec eco-engineering UK Ltd and University of Glasgow, 2 cbec eco-engineering UK Ltd and University of the Highlands and Islands, 3 cbec eco-engineering UK Ltd

Many of the natural flood risk management tools we have at our disposal seem relatively

simple to apply: at a reach scale we often use the tools of embankment set back or

embankment removal, inset floodplains, and re-meandering, and large wood placements. In

some cases judicious use of these NFM tools works well at promoting reductions in flood risk

both adjacent to the intervention and downstream. Often it is a beneficial effect downstream

that is the main NFM design objective. However, an example where application of standard

NFM tools can have unforeseen, detrimental effects, is the case where existing embankments

are overtopped and greatly slow the return of water to the channel on its journey

downstream. In this situation, embankment set back can lower flood levels so embankments

are not overtopped, and/or embankment removal can speed up the return of floodwater back

to the channel resulting in an NFM design which increases the downstream hydrograph peak

compared to that for existing conditions. Often this effect is more apparent for extreme high

flows (like the 1:100/y and 1:200/year design events) compared to lower flood return

intervals. We use unsteady hydraulic modelling of several NFM scenarios where

embankments are moved, set-back or removed to demonstrate cases where NFM works, and

where NFM tools could be detrimental. However, we also show how the hydraulic modelling

can be used to tune and adjust a basic NFM design to achieve the desired natural lowering of

flood risk. We also describe minimum technical standards for modelling NFM scenarios at the

reach scale.

Conference Suite 2: Evidencing Change

EVALUATING RIVER RESTORATION TECHNIQUES: SETTLEMENT PONDS IN THE AFON EDEN CATCHMENT, NORTH WALES

H. MARPLES1 & S. HEARN2 1 Bangor University, 2 Natural Resources Wales

Freshwater pearl mussel populations are declining across Europe due to habitat degradation

and overfishing and are now classified at a European level as critically endangered on the

IUCN red list. The Pearls in Peril (PiP) LIFE funded project, which was completed in 2016, aimed

to improve habitat quality for the species in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) across the

UK. The Afon Eden - Cors Goch Trawsfynydd SAC in North Wales, designated for pearl mussels,

was part of the PiP project and several catchment and in-stream restoration interventions

were carried out. Settlement ponds were created in a former conifer plantation (Brynteg

Forest) which had been identified as a source of suspended solids, nitrate and phosphate to

the Afon Eden. The intention was that the ponds would trap suspended solids and prevent

them from entering the Afon Eden SAC. This study re-visited ten of the ponds in 2017 (two

years’ post construction) and carried out water quality monitoring of the inflows and outflows

as well as measuring accrued sediment. It also analysed whether various water quality

parameters complied with the thresholds required for the survival of freshwater pearl

mussels.

In general, water in the outflows was found to have lower concentrations of suspended solids,

nitrates, phosphates and conductivity than water in the inflows, along with higher levels of

dissolved oxygen and water temperature. Concentrations of suspended solids were lower in

the outflow than the inflow of seven of the ten ponds, suggesting that they are retaining

sediment. In the three remaining ponds, the concentrations of suspended solids increase

from the inflow to the outflow, suggesting that they are already full and have no spare

capacity to retain further suspended solids. Despite this study not finding an overall significant

reduction in suspended solids, the accrued sediment shows that the ponds are effective at

trapping sediment. Pond size plays a key role in the rate of removal, with larger ponds

removing a greater percentage.

Suspended solids, nitrates, phosphates, dissolved oxygen and conductivity measured in the

outflows all met the current requirements for the survival of freshwater pearl mussels. The

pH was found to be too acidic, however this may have a limited effect on the mussel

population due to dilution downstream. Further study is recommended into: catchment

hydrology and pond functioning, impact of recent rain events on water quality, effect of pond

design on performance and alternative techniques for measurement of accrued sediment.

Suggestions are made for the design and location of constructed wetlands and measurement

of improvements on habitat quality for pearl mussels.

THE ROTTAL BURN RESTORATION PROJECT: COLLABORATIVE EVIDENCE AND IMPACT FROM RIVER CHAMPIONS, RESEARCH COLLABORATORS (AND LOTS

OF STUDENT PROJECTS) R. WADE1, K. A. DEMPSEY2, C. MacINTYRE3, A. BRAID4 & A. TOMCZYK5

1 Abertay University, 2 River South Esk Catchment Partnership, 3 Esk Rivers and Fisheries Trust, 4 Millard Consulting, 5 Jacobs

This presentation provides morphological, ecological, community and wider evidence of

change and impact from a restored river system monitored over 5 years. The Rottal Burn in

Angus, Scotland was remeandered in 2012. In the intervening years stakeholders and

researchers have worked together and have pieced together multiple student projects to

provide a broad and contextualised evidence base for the benefits. The evidence base

presented in this talk will track the morphological change, river habitat and ecosystem service

development, recorded as the system has matured and will also showcase stakeholder

perceptions and community and catchment outcomes. Whilst the multiple benefits of

working together are highlighted, the evidence gaps and research needs are also discussed in

this jointly delivered presentation.

IMPLEMENTING FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND RIVER RESTORATION TO CONSERVE INSTREAM HABITAT FOR BROWN TROUT

N. V. ANGELOPOULOS1, J. P. HARVEY1, J. D. BOLLAND1, M. A. SMITH1, M. J. TAYLOR1, A. D. NUNN1, R. A. A. NOBLE1, I. G. COWX1, J. E. G. MASTERS2 & J. MOXON2

1 Hull International Fisheries Institute, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, 2 Environment Agency, Fisheries, Biodiversity and Geomorphology

Flood Risk Management (FRM) is imperative to reduce the risk of flooding to properties and

infrastructure but can profoundly affect the physical habitat of a river and key biota, such as

fish. FRM can involve the removal of key riverine habitat characteristics, for example,

meanders and instream features such as trees, riparian vegetation, shallow gravel areas and

islands to create a wider, often deeper and less complex channel to support the conveyance

of large volumes of water. This process subsequently degrades the principle functional habitat

units in rivers required for fish spawning, recruitment, feeding and refuge and therefore, can

have undesirable effects on the survival of a particular life stage of fish, resulting in

displacement, gradual or sudden declines in populations or mortality.

FRM is dependent on political support through legislation, such as the European Floods

Directive (2007/60/EC) and in the UK, the Flood and Water Management Act ((FWMA) 2010),

developed in response to the Pitt Review (2008) commissioned following the 2007 floods.

Historically, FRM in Europe was used to merely support economic and social benefits, but

now, where possible, the process endeavours to incorporate ecological integrity under the

European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) and Habitats Directive. This synergistic

approach between cross-sectoral river ecosystem services such as FRM and river restoration

aims to support and maximise multiple benefits between sectors. FRM activities are predicted

to intensify in the future because of an increase in extreme flow events, yet few studies

provide ecological monitoring and evaluation for the integration of FRM and river restoration,

limiting our understanding of how rivers and fish populations respond to instream works. The

lack of studies are often due to restricted timescales and limited funding for monitoring and

evaluation but post implementation evaluation is critical to inform river mangers, policy

makers, project partnerships and stakeholder groups in the planning and development of

future FRM and river restoration projects.

In June 2007, following a 1-in-150 year flood event in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England,

4,000 homes and 1,800 businesses were flooded (Pitt Review 2008). In England, the

Environment Agency is responsible for delivering sustainable FRM and in 2009 they undertook

FRM works at Malin Bridge, Sheffield to reduce the risk of flooding. Subsequent river

restoration aimed to rehabilitate the physical habitat and conserve the local brown trout

(Salmo trutta L.) populations. In this paper we present the findings of long term (8 years)

habitat and brown trout investigations at Malin Bridge, and includes, pre-FRM works (2009),

post-FRM works (2010), post-restoration works (2011) and subsequent annual investigations

(2011-2016). Specific objectives were to compare juvenile, sub-adult and adult brown trout

(i) habitat quality and availability (ii) population density and (iii) utilisation of habitat, before,

during and after FRM and river restoration works.

ENGAGING WITH RIVERS IN FOUR DIMENSIONS L. SHUKER1, A. M. GURNELL2, G. WHARTON2, J. ENGLAND3 & D. J. GURNELL4

1 Thames 21/Cartographer Studios Ltd, 2 Queen Mary, University of London, 3 Environment Agency, 4 Cartographer Studies Ltd

Many excellent biological and water quality monitoring initiatives are evolving across

catchment partnerships, with several including the potential to engage enthusiastic citizen

scientists. However, existing methods provide sparse information about physical processes,

structure and habitat of rivers.

The Modular River Survey provides a versatile framework for river managers and volunteers

to investigate and monitor physical aspects of river environments. The survey combines data

at three scales: short river reaches (MoRPh survey: 10-40m length) to link with biological data;

intermediate reaches (MultiMoRPh survey: 100-400m length) to synthesise the river’s

physical habitat structure and functioning; and long reaches (HydroMoRPh analysis: 10+km)

to précis the river type (slope, width, sinuosity, number of active channels), modifications

(land use, infrastructure) and rate of adjustment (widening, narrowing, migrating) over

decades. The three scales of survey are nested to reveal the changing physical character of a

river in space, and the fourth dimension: time.

This presentation will explain the rationale behind the MoRPh (Modular River Physical),

MultiMorph and HydroMoRPh surveys and analysis, and will elaborate on their

complementary roles in describing and assessing river physical characteristics at over a range

of space and time scales.

We report on the first year of application of MoRPh and MultiMoRPh in terms of the quantity

and geographical distribution of the data that have been collected and overarching trends;

providing also an update on future directions in development of the Modular River Survey

framework.

Conference Suite 3: Barriers

NOVEL DESIGN, INSTALLATION AND ASSESSMENT OF COARSE FISH PASSAGE USING LOW COST BAFFLE (LCB) SOLUTION AT A GAUGING STATION T. HULL1, A. LOTHIAN2, C. GARDNER1, J. TUMMERS2, D. GRIFFITHS3, M. LUCAS2

1 South East Rivers Trust, 2 Durham University, 3 Environment Agency

Kingston gauging weir on the Hogsmill River, a tributary of the Lower Thames, is the most

downstream obstruction in the catchment and presented a complete barrier to fish passage.

The gauging weir was atypical, having a downstream face slope of 1:3.3 (30%) instead of the

1:5 (20%) slope that the standard Low Cost Baffle (LCB) arrangement was designed for. The

use of a standard LCB solution on this steep gradient is unproven and unlikely to be effective

due to hydraulic considerations. Standard LCB on a 24% sloped weir have previously been

shown to be effective in facilitating upstream passage of brown trout Salmo trutta. However,

there is no peer-reviewed literature on the use of LCB in aiding upstream passage of coarse

fish, although one grey literature report does provide some evidence of successful passage of

coarse fish. Furthermore, there is no literature regarding the use of LCB in facilitating fish

passage at a weir with such a steep slope as the Kingston gauging weir.

A collaborative project between the South East Rivers Trust and Environment Agency aimed

to achieve multi-species passage whilst maintaining gauging accuracy. A novel design of LCB

was developed which theoretically would provide suitable conditions for the passage of

coarse fish. Further investigations were undertaken to inform the position of the upper baffle

so not to compromise gauging accuracy.

Passage efficiency of dace, chub, roach and barbel from wild (n=274) and farmed sources

(n=239) was studied by Durham University using Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT)

telemetry. The study covered five months through the peak migratory season to measure

passage performance. This information will i) inform locally on fish passage at the site, ii) give

insight for the suitability of LCB at similar weirs elsewhere and, iii) contribute to a PhD

academic study.

The study has demonstrated 45% and 35% passage efficiency over the baffles and whole

structure respectively, for a range of coarse fish species of different sizes. The study explored

the effects of various parameters on passage including flow discharge, temperature, diurnal

patterns and fish size. Now that the novel LCB design has been demonstrated to be effective,

the principle can be disseminated and implemented on other weirs with similar gradients,

which have previously been considered unsuitable for the LCB solution.

THE IMPACT OF WEIR REMOVAL ON THE FORAGING AND ACTIVITY OF BRITISH BATS

S. SCOTT1, C. TURTLE1 & J. COLLINS2 1 Environment Agency, 2 Bat Conservation Trust

Bats are useful bio-indicators of environmental health and are used by Defra as indicators of

environmental change. Some bats are affected by the habitat quality and water quality of

British rivers. This project considers the impact of in-channel habitat changes following weir

removal on the foraging and activity of British bats, and the need to address this in river

restoration schemes.

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) sets strict criteria for rivers to meet Good

Ecological Status. This is assessed as a measure of a river’s hydromorphological, chemical and

biological state. Fish, aquatic invertebrates and macrophytes are used as biological indicators.

For a river to meet ‘Good Ecological Status’ all quality parameters need to be met. In-channel

structures are often a reason for ecological failure. Weirs have previously been introduced to

river systems for milling, hydropower and aesthetic reasons. However, they are a barrier for

fish passage and affect in-channel morphology. In-channel structures which prevent fish

passage are often removed to deliver the Water Framework Directive actions.

Sections of smooth water are found behind weirs; the length of still water depends on the

head of the impoundment and the gradient of the river channel. When a weir is removed the

river will revert to ‘natural’ geomorphic processes. Dependent on the flow regime and

sediment load within the channel, pool/riffle systems will be formed. The creation of ‘natural’

conditions has multiple benefits for wildlife, particularly those species which require areas of

faster flow and gravels in their life-cycle.

However, removing areas of smooth water can potentially have a negative effect on some

species. For example, bats use a sophisticated system of echolocation for navigation that can

be disrupted by irregular/highly mobile objects. Sound echoes produced from echolocation

calls scatter when in contact with irregular surfaces and make foraging and navigation

difficult. On rivers, bats have been known to avoid using riffle habitats for this reason. Some

bats, are also adapted to forage over smooth water. For example, Daubenton’s bats feed by

trawling for insects over water using specially adapted feet to clasp aquatic invertebrates

close to the water’s edge.

The impact of weir removal on bat activity is not widely considered when carrying out river

restoration schemes. Removing large areas of important foraging habitat could affect the

conservation status of British bats, particularly the Daubenton’s bat. The Environment Agency

and Bat Conservation Trust are working in partnership to investigate this issue. The outcome

will be an evidence directory of case studies, monitoring methodology and guidance on

mitigation techniques.

NEW GUIDE TO FISH PASSAGE AND SCREENING AT FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND LAND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES BASED ON PRACTICAL

EXPERIENCE O. SHOLI1, R. PILCHER1, T. HARDING2, J. BOLLAND3, A. DEACON1 & R. HORSFIELD2

1 AECOM, 2 THA Aquatic Ltd, 3 Hull Institute of Fisheries

We are developing a new guide and supporting tools which synthesise existing research,

guidance and practical experience to help the planning/appraisal, design, construction and

maintenance of fish and eel screens, deterrents, passes and fish-passible pumps at structures

such as pumping stations, weirs, locks, sluices and tidal outfalls.

Production of the new guide is being directed by a Project Advisory Panel comprising end-

user representatives from organisations such as the Environment Agency, Natural Resource

Wales, Internal Drainage Boards, Lead Local Authorities and Natural England.

The new guide will also be relevant to anyone interested in passage and deterrent measures,

especially as it is intended to help link fisheries science with practical implementation. The

primary audience of the new guide will be the flood risk management authorities (RMAs) and

we anticipate it being particularly useful to Internal Drainage Boards.

The project and fish passage measures described have strong links to River Restoration. Many

of the solutions outlined, such as weir removal, are classically considered to be river

restoration techniques. Through the provision of fish and eel passage measures at sites, each

of the solutions outlined in the guide provide a naturalisation of the system in accordance

with the tenants of river restoration.

The project has strong links to both existing fisheries scientific knowledge and current

research studies, with the guide and decision support tool being built in order to facilitate the

appropriate design and delivery of the passage solutions (whether at new builds or when

retrofitting solutions).

Central to the aims of the project are to encourage partnership working through gaining

knowledge on design solutions from scientists and suppliers as well as meeting with

practitioners on site and those that have built solutions. Lessons learned have been gleaned

through interviews with experts and from our extensive programme of sites visits, which are

discussed further below.

The guide and decision support tool are to be designed so that they can be adaptive. They are

to be based on fish behaviour and in channel infrastructure, taking into account current

legislation and funding mechanisms, noting that the latter two will likely change in the years

ahead (for example once the full impacts of Brexit have come to fruition).

The project team have recently completed a literature review and programme of

approximately 40 site visits throughout the United Kingdom at a range of in channel

structures, varying in nature and scale. This has been complimented by an extended visit to

the Netherlands where the project team visited a further 10 sites and witnessed first-hand

some of the innovations the Dutch have applied to help improve fish and eel passage at

structures.

Work on producing the new guide started in November 2016 and is due to be completed and

disseminated by the middle of 2018.

APPROACHING 10 YEARS ON - SHEDDING LIGHT ON STREAM DAYLIGHTING AROUND THE WORLD

A. T. BROADHEAD1 & T. C. WILD2 1 Arup, 2 University of Sheffield

Deculverting, or 'daylighting', involves opening up buried watercourses and restoring them to

more natural conditions. It is often claimed to provide multiple benefits to society, the

environment and the economy, and spans multiple disciplines in river restoration, flood risk

management, urban design and ecology. As a form of river restoration, it has arguably gone

mainstream in the last decade, with numerous projects from understated to prize-winning,

large and small, urban and rural, across the UK and internationally in recent years. Daylighting,

and specifically “lost rivers”, are subjects that continue to inspire the public and popular

media. However, the outcomes and objectives of deculverting projects are rarely published,

which makes it difficult to evaluate their true effectiveness, determine the best methods to

use, or provide quantitative evidence to encourage future projects. To address this challenge,

www.daylighting.org.uk was established as a map-based website where practitioners and

researchers working on deculverting projects are encouraged to enter case study information,

as well as browse past case studies for inspiration or information and contact details. This talk

will assess the current state of stream daylighting in 2018, drawing on nearly 10 years of

collecting hundreds of case studies from around the world via www.daylighting.org.uk. We

hoped that disseminating the results of deculverting projects would help to deliver improved

practices and policies to promote deculverting. We examine changes in policy and practice,

look at the best examples and lessons learnt, and attempt to shed light on the future of

daylighting our lost urban rivers.

Session 3: Parallel Sessions Conference Theatre: Working in Partnership

BETTER TOGETHER - HOW WORKING IN PARTNERSHIPS HAS ACHIEVED SO MUCH MORE IN TELFORD'S URBAN CATCHMENT

G. PLUCKWELL1 1 Environment Agency

The Love Your River Telford project is a holistic, all inclusive, partnership approach, aimed at

improving water quality, biodiversity and flood resilience within the town of Telford by

complimenting physical improvements with community engagement. By bringing together

organisations with similar aspirations and working with volunteers, schools, businesses and

the local community, significant benefits have been achieved. This efficient and proactive

partnership approach has resulted in both non-financial and financial gains.

The hub of the whole idea we’ve called the Clean Stream Team (CST). The CST has 4 members:

the EA, Water Company and the Local Authority. They are supported by the town’s

community and the other project partners. The CST’s objectives are to proactively seek and

resolve as many water environment issues in the town for the life of the project by sharing

local knowledge, equipment, expertise and powers. The community recognises visual signs of

water pollution and how to alert the CST to the problems.

Shropshire Wildlife Trust are the main delivery partner and oversee most of the work on the

ground. Our community awareness initiative has engaged with over 1000 school children

through the River Ranger Education Programme, over 200 businesses through the Blue

Business Awards, over 10 different volunteer groups through training and providing them

with monitoring equipment, as well as local residents through the media and awareness

leaflets. All of our engagement highlights how to identify the signs of pollution in the water

environment and how to alert the CST.

Community engagement directly compliments the physical improvements we’ve made to the

town’s watercourses. Physical improvements have taken many forms and include: 300m of

deculverted watercourse, >1km of bankside habitat improved, 3 “Depave” raingardens

implemented, a highways SUDS deployed, >4000m2 of flood storage created, woody debris

structures along >400m of watercourse, >2000m2 of wetland regenerated and a

bioremediation island installed.

The project is in its 4th year. The community engagement continues as described above and

will compliment further physical improvements planned.

Environment Agency monitoring data, combined with the projects intensive monitoring

programme and volunteer collected data helps the project locate issues, target resources,

identify mitigation measures and detect improvements.

Watercourses in the town have already shown improvements with a jump up in at least 1

WFD status in 5 of the 8 present. Habitats have been created and enhanced, localised flood

risk reduced and efficiencies resulting in a potential saving in excess of £3M for project

partners realised.

The urban catchment management model created in partnership in Telford compliments

community engagement with physical improvements works. It has gained recognition both in

the UK and overseas, resulting in a number of towns either implementing the model or

seeking funding to do so.

TOWARDS A WILDER RIVER CRANE: BENEFITS OF PARTNERSHIP DELIVERY T. WHITE1 & P. SOVIC DAVIES1

1 London Wildlife Trust

London Wildlife Trust staff worked with Ealing, Hillingdon, Hounslow & Richmond-upon-

Thames councils to develop & deliver river improvement plans for over 5km of river, covering

10 public green spaces throughout the River Crane catchment in west London.

The design of habitat interventions was driven by several key requirements such as delivery

by local volunteers, use of local recycled materials, funding restrictions & a desire to improve

site appeal (including security) & public access, in addition to the challenges posed by the

urban nature of the River Crane. A volunteer training programme, covering the conservation

rationale, practical restoration work & health & safety aspects, was key to the project’s

success & good volunteer retention, enabling over 30 key volunteers to confidently deliver

work over a six-month period. Training was delivered over four sessions in different locations,

providing local volunteer opportunities. Following completion of the project, a large

proportion of volunteers joined other Trust activities in the Crane Valley.

A series of habitat improvements were delivered at Brookside Open Space, Crane Park Island,

Yeading Brook Meadows & Gutteridge Wood Nature Reserve between autumn 2016 & winter

2017. Following tree work delivered by local authorities & a specialist contractor, volunteers

recycled cut branches to create brash berms within the river channel to soften reinforced

river banks, create variation in flow, & encourage development of in-channel vegetation. In

addition to this, flow deflectors & hinged trees were installed in appropriate locations, while

unnecessary bank reinforcements were removed. These interventions significantly improved

the river’s habitat for fish, invertebrates & other wildlife, in line with local BAP objectives.

At all sites access was improved by opening up a riverside trail & clearing accumulated litter.

The newly cleared areas of river bank with footpaths reduced anti-social behaviour, improved

perception of safety & encouraged local residents to access the sites & appreciate the river,

which was reflected in documented positive feedback. Through the project the Trust worked

with more than 200 volunteers, ensuring that local people develop a duty of care for the river,

whilst reinstating the Crane corridor as an important green asset. In addition, they assisted in

contributing towards the London BAP targets for river restoration.

The project demonstrated that several components were key to strategic delivery of habitat

improvements across several local authorities, particularly liaison with stakeholders through

the catchment partnership & a close working relationship with the local authorities, through

all stages of the project. This approach built a clear understanding of responsibilities of all

involved partners, which, together with an intense public engagement volunteer training

programme, will be the main driver to secure long-term maintenance of the improved sites.

LIVING HERITAGE OF THE RIVER DON

R. WALKER1 1 Don Catchment Rivers Trust

The ambition of Don Catchment Rivers Trust (DCRT) is to reconnect people, communities and

decision makers back to the River Don and its rich natural, cultural, built and industrial

heritage. We want to change their beliefs and attitudes so that the River Don and its heritage

will be better valued as a major asset to South Yorkshire and better protected into the future.

Whilst identifying funding for a fish passage scheme in Sheffield on five un-owned weirs the

Trust took the opportunity to progress this ambition by applying for major funding with the

Heritage Lottery Fund. There was an emphasis on engaging partners and communities and

the project has three main aims: To inspire and mobilise the community; to develop skills for

heritage and capacity; to foster understanding and change perceptions.

Working under these three aims, the Trust set about creating a programme of engagement,

employing a Community Engagement Officer and project staff. To ‘inspire and mobilise the

community’ the Trust opened itself to recruiting and training volunteers to carryout

conservation work. DCRT now has a dedicated group of volunteers as well as corporate

volunteers. We tackle ‘hot spot’ areas along the river, improving access and removing decades

of litter and overgrown vegetation to make the river a better place to be for people and an

asset to their local communities. We have also created our ‘River Guardian’ school sessions,

which aim to bring classes out to visit the river and learn about their local environment – why

learn about the River Nile when the River Don is on your doorstep!

A key aim of the project is to upskill people so that they feel confident in volunteering, so to

‘develop skills for heritage and capacity’ we run a programme of formal and informal training

days for volunteers on subjects ranging from identification skills to first aid courses. We also

now employ an apprentice, who is working towards a Level 2 qualification in Environmental

Conservation.

Perhaps the most important aim is to foster understanding and change people’s perceptions

of the river. 40 years ago the River Don was ‘dead’ owing to decades of industrial activity. This

is an image that sticks in people’s minds, so we run community discovery events and walks

and make sure we get out and about to events. The Trust has set up the Don Valley Way

walking trail to encourage people to visit and look after the river.

Don Catchment Rivers Trust does not own or have responsibility for any part of the river, so

of course for Living Heritage of the River Don to be successful we had to develop our

partnerships. We work closely with statutory bodies, organisations, charities, as well as

community groups, and partnership working permeates everything we do. From getting

permissions for works, to tapping into local authority marketing outlets, to getting piles of

rubbish collected by the Council - partnerships have become an important part of Don

Catchment Rivers Trust.

‘SMARTER WATER CATCHMENTS’ IN THE EVENLODE – WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP TO REDUCE PHOSPHORUS IN RIVERS

Y. de GARIS1, J. WESTLAKE1, M. HUBAND2 & S. OLNEY3 1 Thames Water, 2 Atkins, 3 Natural England

Excessive levels of phosphorus can damage the river environment, for instance by generating

algal blooms. In rural areas, run-off from agricultural land and discharge from sewage

treatment works can both be significant sources of phosphorus in natural waters. Thames

Water is committed to continued investment in treatment processes that improve the quality

of effluent discharged to river from its works. However, the company is also exploring

whether it can make a cost-effective contribution to managing phosphorus in natural waters

by supporting farmers in the implementation of catchment measures.

We set up a trial in three headwater catchments of the River Evenlode to explore how a water

company can work with local farmers and environmental partners to reduce the loss of

phosphorus to rivers. The trial set out to achieve the following:

Explore the logistics and practical challenges of a water company working with farmers

and other partners to deliver effective catchment management.

Understand the value of catchment management to customers. Is it a cost-effective use

of their money? Do measures to reduce phosphorus generate additional environmental

benefits that they also value?

Assess the effectiveness of measures at reducing phosphorus loss in a lowland Thames

catchment.

The project has now been running for just over two years, with a catchment management

scheme and associated measures launched in September 2017

(www.thameswater.co.uk/evenlodecatchment). This paper discusses the successes and

challenges experienced in the project so far, drawing out the some of the novel aspects of the

study by broadly focussing on the following themes:

Engagement: We have focussed on forging strong relationships with farmers as well as

partner organisations such as the Evenlode Catchment Partnership. This is an ongoing

process. Good advice depends on understanding the way a farm operates; farmers are

more likely to participate in a scheme if they know and trust the person providing advice.

Likewise, collaborative schemes with local environmental partners with the potential to

yield multiple benefits require close working relationships to plan, design and implement.

Developing an evidence base: a strong evidence base on the implementation costs and

effectiveness of measures to reduce phosphorus is needed a) to direct investment during

the trial and b) to assess the value catchment management delivers to customers.

Evidence on the wider environmental and social benefits of measures is also essential in

establishing the full ecosystem services provided by the scheme.

Flexibility The scheme has been designed to be broad enough to evolve flexibly in

accordance with the requirements of local farmers, and to take advantage of

opportunities to work with local partners. Farmers are encouraged to propose innovative

measures of their own.

Conference Suite 2: Managing Sediment and Pollutants

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT: ASSESSING RISKS IN UK RIVERS I. DENNIS1, C. RODGERS1, P. WILLIAMSON1 & J. KWAN2

1 Royal HaskoningDHV, 2 CIRIA

Sediments in rivers often contain substances from both naturally occurring and

anthropogenic sources at concentrations that can potentially harm the health of the aquatic

environment and present a risk to human beings. These contaminants can be moved with

natural river sediment and stored in river channels and floodplains. They can also be disturbed

by natural flood flows, river maintenance and dredging, or development activities. The

contamination can affect the ecology of the water body and human health, through bathing

or fish consumption. The management of sediments has an important role to play as the UK

works to meet its Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives to improve water quality and

achieve 'good status' in surface water bodies.

Royal HaskoningDHV is currently producing a guide for risk assessment and management of

contaminated sediment for the Construction Industry Research and Information Association

(CIRIA), to be published in Spring 2018. The aim of this national guidance is to provide practical

information on how to understand, assess and manage contaminated sediment in natural and

man-made water environments. This guide is targeted at a wide range of stakeholders who

have an interest in the management of contaminated sediment or who may encounter

contaminated sediment while undertaking works in the aquatic environment. It is designed

to provide the reader with a summary of the information they need to determine whether

contaminated sediment is present, characterise the extent and nature of contamination,

assess the risks that the contamination poses, and, where appropriate, provide guidance on

proactively and effectively managing these risks.

The CIRIA guide draws on the extensive literature available on this topic and Royal

HaskiningDHV’s practical experience in this field. It builds on Royal HaskoningDHV’s findings

from our recent research for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

into the risks posed by contaminated sediments across the country as part of the

organisation’s Non-Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Strategy. The project used an extensive

desk-based review of literature to produce a detailed conceptual model for potential

contaminated sediment risks in the freshwater and marine environments. A comprehensive

database of contaminated sediment quality was then compiled from available data sets and

combined with information on potential sources of contamination, receptor sensitivity and

physical characteristics to inform a GIS-based national risk assessment. This allowed the

likelihood and consequence of contamination to be determined, and the scale of risk to be

assessed.

Our presentation will discuss the key messages from this latest guidance for anyone working

in water environments where contaminated sediments are likely to be a risk, and will explain

how the CIRIA guide can be used to assess and manage this risk to support a healthy river

environment.

MANAGING ACCUMULATED SEDIMENTS: BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL (BUDM) AND WORKING WITH NATURE (WwN)

W. COULET1 & W. MANNING1 1 Exo-Environmental

Accumulated sediments within riverine and coastal systems pose a potential risk to

ecosystem health and functioning, flood management and navigation. Dredging is one tool

that can be employed in the management of accumulated sediments, helping to ensure good

water quality and habitat health, supporting the management and alleviation of flood risk and

providing sufficient water depth critical for navigation and the safe movement of waterborne

traffic.

Dredged material however is defined as a waste under the EU Waste Framework Directive

(WsFD). Consequently, the handling, transportation and disposal of dredged material is costly,

logistically challenging and presents additional challenges to the management of

accumulated sediments. This often results in significant economic constraints and hinders the

long-term management of historic coastal and inland navigational waterways.

The WsFD waste management hierarchy promotes “preparing for re-use” as a preferred

sediment management strategy for all arising material and can be achieved through various

applications of “Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDM)”. This practice considers dredged

material to be a resource rather than a waste and when applied appropriately, BUDM can

offer significant economic, social and environmental benefits over historic sediment

management techniques, such as disposal offshore or in landfill. Similarly, employing the

“Working with Nature” philosophy during the design of BUDM projects, allows win-win

solutions to be identified and realised simultaneously for both infrastructure developments

and the natural environment.

The presentation by Exo Environmental Ltd “Managing Accumulated Sediments: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDM) and Working with Nature (WwN)”, aims to provide an introductory overview of available options for BUDM, following best practice according to current guidelines from specialist bodies such as the Central Dredging Association (CEDA) and International Navigation Association (PIANC) with illustrated case studies having relevance to flood defence, habitat restoration and agricultural improvements. Potential techniques that will be highlighted include:

- The use of geotextile tubes for sediment containment and habitat creation, - Restoration of intertidal habitats in an estuarine system, to enhance biodiversity and

support local sea defences, - The valorisation of a waste material through the development of products for

applications in coastal defence, and - Agricultural spreading for soil enhancement.

SILT MANAGEMENT CAN BE EASY...WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE GETTING IT WRONG? R. HAINE1

1 frog environmental

This presentation will draw from the practical experience of frog environmental and our

associate practitioners over the past 12 months from visiting construction projects that have

had varying degrees of impact on nearby rivers.

A review of the main underlying reasons for failures that lead to silt pollution events will be

discussed. These range from organisational issues such as poor communication through to

more practical issues such as a lack of site investigation and monitoring.

Climate change, a dynamic evidence base and a firmer line taken by regulators regarding silt

pollution all lead us towards a rethink on how we should be managing the risk of silt pollution.

This talk will also use practical examples of good practice to demystify some of the challenges

of controlling silt and put forward the argument that with good planning the majority of

projects can protect local watercourses by using low cost, passive methods that are readily

scalable.

PARTNERSHIP WORKING IN THE SUSSEX OUSE CATCHMENT S. LOHREY1, R. KELLY2 & E. LONG3

1 South East Water, 2 Natural England, Catchment Sensitive Farming, 3 National Trust

Drinking water resources in the River Ouse catchment in Sussex are being compromised by

increasing levels of pesticides and turbidity. In 2015 South East Water began catchment

management work in the River Ouse by undertaking investigation work alongside the delivery

of pilot trials to test the effectiveness of catchment measures. The aim of the catchment

investigation work was to identify the possible sources of pesticides and turbidity and their

pathways to water, and to identify solutions. These investigations included water quality

monitoring, desktop studies, catchment walkover surveys and modelling work. Catchment

Management has been delivered in partnership with Natural England’s Catchment Sensitive

Farming officers, working with farmers and land managers to address the sources of diffuse

pollution.

Part of the catchment investigation work and options appraisal has focused on Working with

Natural Processes and how these options can deliver multiple environmental and social

benefits. In 2015 South East Water identified an opportunity to work with the National Trust

on a river restoration project at their Sheffield Park estate in East Sussex.

The River Ouse has been heavily modified over the years and certain stretches have been

deepened and straightened to allow for navigation. The National Trust’s aspiration for the

Sheffield Park project was to reconnect the River Ouse back to its original 8 hectares of flood

meadows and to reinstate historic meanders. The National Trust’s objectives were twofold;

to restore and enhance the ecological function of the site and reconnect people to nature,

improving visitor experience at Sheffield Park. The catchment investigation work identified

an opportunity to use the floodplain to temporarily store river water during high flows, thus

encouraging the deposition of sediments and nutrients and the biological breakdown of

pesticides. This approach builds upon similar smaller scale techniques used to tackle diffuse

pollution in agriculture such as constructed wetlands and swales.

South East Water worked with the National Trust, the River Restoration Centre and CBEC to

design a scheme which met both parties’ aspirations. The final design incorporates bank

regrading, in-channel hydraulic controls and floodplain scrapes to encourage sediment

deposition. This design has meant that the meanders have been partially reinstated but the

main river channel has been left open. Works were largely completed during autumn 2017,

with further work planned for spring 2018. Monitoring will include the installation of turbidity

sensors in the river channel at upstream and downstream locations and also trialling

‘sediment mats’ that are to be positioned on the floodplain. The National Trust will also

monitor the biodiversity of the site and visitor numbers.

South East Water will use the evidence gathered from the Sheffield Park project to evaluate

river restoration as a measure to deliver water quality improvements.

Conference Suite 3: Novel ways of using Data

HISTORICAL STUDIES FOR INFORMING SUSTAINABLE RIVER RESTORATION STRATEGIES

J. COX1 1 Ricardo/University of Portsmouth

Understanding the history of rivers is important for shaping their future. The accessibility to

resources that may support historical studies has improved over the last two decades. This

project aimed to explore these resources to inform river restoration strategies of the River

Rother, West Sussex. The river drains 350 square kilometres of the South Down National Park

and has been a critical water resource for the local population for over a millennium.

Concerns for the river’s ecological health have been raised due to poor fisheries and in-

channel fine sediment deposits. Fine sediment accumulation near a drinking water

abstraction point also has the potential to disrupt the operations of a local water company.

These issues have largely been attributed to increased fine sediment inputs from agricultural

sources since the 1970s. This project challenges previous research with new evidence that

suggests in-channel sediment transport processes may be responsible for a significant

amount of the fine sediment issues observed in the lower catchment.

A range of methods were used to examine how the river has changed over time and assess

which areas of the river may naturally scour, transfer or accumulate sediment. Methods

include a review of archival evidence, a reconnaissance field survey and the application of

broad-scale sediment budgeting tools. Archival sources suggest that problems associated

with fine sediment accumulation resulting in poor fisheries are not new. Historic channel

modifications, including the construction of mills and the cutting of the Rother Navigation,

have significantly altered sediment transport processes. In-channel structures have been a

major control of deposition and erosion within the catchment such that the channel itself may

be a main source of sediment.

It is possible that more recent agricultural practices on the immediate floodplain and the

introduction of invasive species of flora have exacerbated rates of bank erosion. Indeed,

evidence suggests that bank erosion rates have increased since the mid-1970s. The acts of

widening, straightening and increasing river bank heights have probably promoted in-channel

sediment accumulation and reduced the potential for floodplain sediment storage. Evidence

suggests these floodplains have been actively managed for over a millennium, with flooding

and deposition of fine sediment promoted to improve agricultural productivity. The inherent

low slope and overwide channel geometry within the lower catchment indicates that the

lower reaches of the river are highly likely to aggrade, even if sediment inputs from the

catchment are reduced. Thus, the restoration of longitudinal and lateral sediment

connectivity within the system may be critical. The findings of this study, which were informed

mostly by open data sources, highlight the importance of reviewing historical evidence to

inform sustainable river restoration strategies.

CATMAN: A NATURAL CAPITAL FRAMEWORK BASED ON WHOLE CATCHMENT

MODELLING OF LAND USE, ASSET IMPROVEMENT, DIFFUSE POLLUTION AND

FLOOD RISK

R. NGAI1, R. SMALE2 & S. FOX3 1 JBA Consulting, 2 Vivid Economics, 3 United Utilities

Defra and environmental regulators are increasingly asking key sectors to look at utilising

natural capital approaches and valuation to represent the flow of benefits for investment

decisions in relation to asset or whole catchment management solutions. Consequently,

United Utilities is looking to pilot natural capital approaches in anticipation of more

catchment based approaches. This would include developing an options appraisal process at

a catchment level from a WFD perspective to determine multiple benefits for stakeholders.

JBA Consulting, in partnership with Vivid Economics, was tasked to create a natural capital

decision support model for the Petteril catchment in Cumbria to test and target solutions to

achieve the best value outcomes for the catchment and United Utilities’ customers. A

methodology was created to integrate flood risk and water quality modelling that could be

inputted into a natural capital economic model to appraise a range of risks and benefits across

the catchment. This methodology needs to be transferable and replicable. Fundamentally,

such an appraisal requires integrated modelling of these different catchment risks informed

by expertise from different disciplines from flood and diffuse pollution modelling to carbon

and economic accounting.

The trial of this methodology for the Petteril catchment was largely informed by local

stakeholder consultation. The consultation was essential to gain local knowledge and

information on the Petteril catchment and the types of interventions that can be

implemented. Interventions chosen included asset based approaches and catchment based

approaches including sustainable wastewater treatment works and catchment interventions,

including working with natural processes. Catchment interventions included converting

grassland into woodland areas, soil improvements, and adding runoff attenuation features.

The methodology utilised existing water quality modelling tools. FARMSCOPER was used to

define the percentage change in diffuse load reductions for Nitrate and Phosphate with

subsequent reduction of diffuse load inputs in SIMCAT to compute the percentage change in

load and water quality at key monitoring sites. Additionally, JFlow (JBA’s 2D hydrodynamic

modelling software) was used to investigate the benefits of catchment interventions on flood

risk.

The outputs of this environmental modelling informed the natural capital approach and

valuation to determine the net present value of management options. The natural capital

approach and valuation results are presented in an integrated interface called the CatMan

(Catchment Management) tool. This CatMan tool will support United Utilities and its

stakeholders in determining the optimised solutions providing benefits beyond its fair share,

achieving more for less. It can be populated using outputs from different modelling packages,

and provides an interface for decision makers that takes on multiple benefits.

COMMUNITY MODELLING – SHAPING THE FUTURE OF LONDON RIVERS

R. NELSON1, P. WHITEHEAD2, G. BUSSI2 & C. LANDSTROM2 1 Thames 21, 2 University of Oxford

As environmental pressures increase, the need for creating a sustainable, evidenced based

approach to how governments, NGO’s and stakeholders manage a river is imperative.

Thames21 has worked with local communities to teach previously ‘academic’ techniques

providing communities with empirical evidence to make a difference. The concept of

community modelling and the computer integrated catchment model (INCA) used by

Thames21 was developed by University of Oxford.

Community modelling engages with residents and provides them with the tools to shape the

future of their local rivers. It has been successfully used in Otley, Leeds, to reduce the issue

of flooding. Thames21 and the University of Oxford, have adopted the technique to explore

water quality, bringing together citizens from a variety of walks of life; some with an avid

interest in utilising computer models and others with a desire to improve the environment.

Thames21 recognises the potential of engaging with communities by working collaboratively

to achieve community led decision making. Through disseminating and sharing knowledge of

water quality issues by using the computer model INCA to support decisions at a catchment

scale, communities feel engaged, valued and empowered. The merits of citizen science within

Thames21 has shown how large scale data sets collected by citizens can provide useful

evidence for researches and academics.

Thames21 has worked with 3 community groups in North London to identify sources, test

scenarios and prioritise actions to improve the water quality in each catchment. Acting as a

neutral facilitator, Thames21 created an inclusive engaging environment meeting monthly in

a community space. The groups began by establishing the water quality issues affecting the

catchments, and making decisions on the direction of how to resolve and improve water

quality.

After a series of walkovers and potential site investigations to connect the community with

their local river, various scenarios were tested to ascertain the potential impact caused by the

installation of SuDS among others. INCA was used as a decision support tool to help predict

where the biggest improvements will be witnessed, whilst also providing evidence of how

effective they will be in the future.

Community modelling has successfully demonstrated its’ versatility in use, providing solutions

for flood risk and water quality issues. With the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and as funding

bids become more competitive, the demand for empirical evidence increases, and thus the

need for community engagement. The potential for replication throughout London and the

UK for community modelling projects, across a spectrum to become the forefront of driving

environmental changes is as yet an untapped resource.

Day 2: Wednesday 25th April

Session 5: Workshops Workshop A – A Focus on Floodplains

KEY PLAYERS IN FLOODPLAIN DEGRADATION

S. BENTLEY1, N. ENTWISTLE2 & G. HERITAGE1 1 AECOM, 2 University of Salford

Regime analysis suggests that temperate alluvial watercourses overtop their banks on

average once every 1.5 years transferring water and sediment across the valley floor to form

floodplains. Lateral erosion and deposition also often operates to rework valley floor deposits

creating a variety of floodplain morphologic units in the process which retain a functional

connectivity with the main river. The result is a morphologically and ecologically varied

wetland dominated ecotone whose diversity is maintained by the action and flooding and

shallow groundwater processes. Floodplain areas are, however, sensitive to disruption and

many have been significantly degraded as a result of activities that alter flooding groundwater

processes and manage vegetation communities. Previous studies have highlighted the role of

agriculture in the loss of floodplain. Analysis of floodplain land use for rivers in England since

1990 reveals intense, progressive and near ubiquitous modification of natural floodplain

characteristics. Very little floodplain remains as rough largely uncultivated or wooded areas

with the majority of floodplain surfaces subject to farming pressures. This paper reviews the

progressive loss of natural floodplain in England and investigates the impact that this has had

on natural floodplain functioning, floodplain ecology and flooding regimes.

The review has revealed extensive and severe degradation of our floodplain systems in

England across both upland and lowland areas resulting in an almost complete loss of natural

floodplain functioning. River restoration remains concentrated on in-channel activity,

however, the push for natural flood management offers an opportunity to restore our

floodplains with an associated improvement in ecological value and flood driven functionality.

The research presented here suggests that it is not lack of floodplain storage space in the

upper catchment, rather the decreased efficiency of floodplain areas to retard flow linked to

grazing which is leading to increased downstream flood risk. Floodplain reconnection,

vegetative naturalization and selective grazing reduction are required to begin to restore

upstream floodplain flood function helping alleviate flooding pressure downstream.

MULTI-OBJECTIVE FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION FROM CALIFORNIA, USA

C. BOWLES1 1 cbec eco-engineering

Multi-objective floodplain management (or floodplain management), as it is referred to in the

USA, is an approach that has progressed rapidly over recent years and we have learned much

through practice and experience. As a philosophy, floodplain management aims to remove

barriers to a river’s natural physical and ecological processes that help to promote healthy

riverine ecosystems, as well as providing opportunities for flood risk reduction through

attenuation of flood pulses on the floodplain. Floodplain management as an approach and

philosophy has been practiced in the USA for over 30 years.

This presentation is an update and an extension to a presentation given at the RRC Conference

in Brighton in 2017. Here a more in depth investigation of two large scale floodplain

restoration projects (case studies) will be presented as examples of floodplain restoration in

California, showing the successes and shortcomings of these projects. The first, the Bear River

Levee Setback Project, constructed in 2005, was the first of its kind in California and the

exposed floodplain that has been reconnected to the river now has a flourishing riparian

forest that has established on the frequently inundated floodplain. The multi-benefits of the

project include the increased level of flood protection to the local community and vastly

improved terrestrial and aquatic habitat that has established on the floodplain. Details will be

provided regarding the ecological design of the restored floodplain as well as construction

photos and post construction monitoring and evaluation. Lessons learned will also be

presented.

The second case study that will be presented is the Southport Levee Setback Project in

Sacramento, California. This project is currently under construction. It is unique in its location

and design in California. First, it is a large levee setback project located adjacent to the

Sacramento River between two cities, Sacramento and West Sacramento. Second, the new

setback levee will be constructed from material excavated from the floodplain, resulting in a

reconnected floodplain that will be ten feet (three metres) lower than the existing floodplain

prior to project construction. This is a large amount of excavation and lowering and will result

in a substantially more connected floodplain to the main river, in terms of inundation

frequency, duration and extent. The resultant ecological consequence of this increased

connectivity will be substantial, particularly for juvenile anadromous fish rearing, as well as

riparian forest recruitment. Details will be provided regarding the ecological design criteria

for a variety of species that were developed to evaluate restoration designs, the ecological,

hydrodynamic and morphological modelling utilized through the design, and photos and

videos of current construction.

HIGH IMPACT RIVER AND FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION OF THE HAMPSHIRE AVON NEAR UPAVON

M. ANTHEUNISSE1, P. WELLER1, R. SPENCER2 & L. DAHL1 1 Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, 2 Five Rivers Environmental Consulting

The River Avon in Wiltshire has recently been identified as the most diverse and healthy chalk

stream in England. Still, a significant number of the water bodies making up the catchment of

the Hampshire Avon are failing to achieve WFD targets and the SAC/SSSI is not in a favourable

condition. Historic, unsympathetic river management and maintenance practices (dredging,

straightening) have resulted in parts in a bare, uniform and over-wide river channel that is in

most places disconnected from its natural floodplain.

The Upper Avon near the village of Upavon has been moved to the edge of the floodplain

(18th century) to allow for maximum use as a water meadow. This system has fallen in

disrepair in the early 20th century and most physical evidence has since gone from the

landscape. However, a uniform channel, mostly disconnected from the floodplain and lacking

characteristic chalk stream features remained in place ever since.

In 2016, the Wessex Chalk Streams Project – a partnership between Wessex Water, local

Environment Agency, Natural England, Wiltshire Fisheries Association, Wessex Chalk Streams

& Rivers Trust and lead by Wiltshire Wildlife Trust – embarked on a project to improve this

particular 500m stretch of the River Avon. Based on LIDAR and additional topographical

survey data, a 1d/2d model was created and several scenarios were run to achieve optimum

dimensions, length and gradient of a channel at the lowest point of the floodplain.

Before the work could start, a Full Planning Permit, a Bespoke Environmental Permit for Flood

Risk Activities, an Archaeological Watching Brief and a Conservation Licence had to be in

place. The latter to make sure not to be in breach of the 1981 Countryside & Wildlife Act due

to the presence of water voles on site.

In September and October of 2017, a new channel according to the model specification was

excavated, with additional wood and gravel introduced. A key challenge during delivery

turned out to be the lack of appropriate sized gravel on site to recreate a stable river bed and

spawning riffles. Additional gravel had to be imported to overcome this.

Further to work on the channel, the floodplain was lowered by on average 300mm, up to 100

meters wide. Following the contracting work, volunteers planted 0.5 ha of native floodplain

woodland as well as bank-side trees to help with generating future natural woody material.

The development of the new channel morphology, as well as (re)colonization by flora and

fauna will be monitored in the years to come by volunteers and the local fishing syndicate.

This project was funded by the Environment Agency and Natural England as part of the River

Avon Restoration Plan, the winner of the 2017 UK Riverprize.

Workshop B – Large Wood in Rivers

THE INFLUENCE OF LARGE WOODY DAMS ON SEDIMENT DYNAMICS M. C. McPARLAND1 & J. HOOKE1

1 The University of Liverpool

A widely used technique for Natural Flood Management (NFM) is to construct Large Woody

Dams (LWDs) in a river to slow the flow of water and create flood water storage areas.

Research on LWDs has typically focused on quantifying the contribution LWDs make to

attenuating flooding by modelling changes to a streams hydrograph or assessing changes to

hydraulics. Multiple papers have demonstrated that LWDs reduce peak mean discharge, delay

time to peak discharge and lower flow velocity. However, research has tended to overlook

how LWDs can affect sediment dynamics.

Due to the limited amount of literature on this topic, analogous research on naturally

occurring Woody Debris Dams (WDDs) was used to assess what changes to sedimentary

processes might be caused by LWDs. WDDs have been shown to cause drastically increased

rates of sediment deposition and have induced large amounts of erosion and scour, with

streams having cut paths around the woody debris, bypassing the obstruction. If LWDs

similarly affect sediment dynamics then these changes could potentially feedback and alter

their effectiveness. Such geomorphological changes are currently not accounted for in the

planning or design of LWDs, and it represents a degree of negative risk for this NFM technique,

with negative risk being defined as factors that inhibit a project’s ability to achieve its targets

or objectives.

To assess the effects that LWDs have on sediment dynamics, post-project monitoring was

carried out on a set of LWDs that were installed on a small steam in Northwest England.

Monitoring involved conducting repeat cross section surveys and terrestrial laser scans, taking

sediment samples as well as in-situ monitoring of flow velocity and crest stage. This data was

also used as the basis for developing a two-dimensional model that assesses changes to

sedimentary processes based on the Bagnold sediment transport equations. The equations

have been solved deterministically and using interval analysis to quantify uncertainty from

which risk can be calculated.

A number of significant changes have already been observed. There has been a large amount

of sediment deposited in the channel immediately upstream of the LWD, reducing the

capacity of the flood water storage area and creating a channel constriction. The constriction

has accelerated the flow of water as it approaches the dam, causing erosion of the stream

bed, allowing the flow to undercut the LWD. These factors have contributed to lessening the

effectiveness of the LWD.

The model that has been created to predict these changes has been developed so that it can

be applied to LWDs that have been constructed in a range of different streams. As such, a tool

is presented that can be used to model how the changes to channel hydraulics induced by a

LWD can alter sedimentary processes. Associated uncertainties can also be calculated,

allowing risks to be evaluated.

THE IMPACT OF WOOD ON BENTHIC AND HYPORHEIC INVERTEBRATES C. MAGLIOZZI1, R. GRABOWSKI1, A. ROBERTSON2 & M. JANES3

1 Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, 2 Centre for Research in Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Roehampton, 3 the River Restoration Centre

Large wood (10 cm diameter and 1 m long- LW) is a key element of river channels and one of

its hypothesised benefits is an increase of hyporheic exchange flow which drives ecological

diversity. However, this connection has not been well evidenced in empirical studies of

hyporheic invertebrates. This study examined the effects of submerged, channel-spanning LW

on the hyporheic and benthic invertebrate communities. Invertebrates were surveyed

seasonally in the Hammer stream (UK) along with measurements of streamflow, sediment

size, water chemistry and wood morphology. Results show that LW produces consistent

patterns of habitat variability within the reaches. Such effects were more visible in the sandy

reach, where wood represents the main source of in-channel structural complexity. Results

of invertebrates’ diversity, abundance and biomass will be presented. This study is improving

our scientific understanding of how wood impacts on biological communities.

PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF USING LARGE WOOD IN RIVER RESTORATION & CHANNEL MANAGEMENT

D. HOLLAND1 1 Salix

Large wood can be used to create multiple benefits in watercourses, however

practical issues can reduce the potential applications and limit successful delivery. Using

several case studies the best methods to anchor wood in the long term are considered as is

how to introduce wood into artificial high energy channels. Case studies will look different

large wood techniques based on range of differing risks and energy (River Rhiw Channel

stabilization, Cwmparc large wood scheme, West Newton Bridge). The River Rhiw is a high

energy river in Mid Wales and in 2013 underwent 8m of dramatic bank erosion that exposed

the main high pressure gas pipeline into mid Wales. A combination of large wood bank

revetments, tree deflectors and in channel large wood structures were installed to manage

bank erosion rates and subsequently reduce the rate of plan form adjustment. At Cwmparc

land reclamation works had created an artificial blockstone lined channel network that lacked

any geomorphic variability and accelerated flows down the valley towards urban areas. A

reach scale trial was undertaken to fix large wood structures into the artificial channel in order

to retain coarse bed load that would otherwise be lost downstream. The project aimed to

demonstrate that retaining large wood in such an artificial channel as practical and that

bedlam could be retained in the reach. Sourcing of suitable wood is discussed as well as key

design and installation lessons learned.

Workshop C – River Restoration for Biodiversity

RESTORING FRESHWATER MUSSEL RIVERS C. GIBSON1, R. A. SWEETING1, C. WEST2, M. WEST3, S. HIRST4 & I. MOSER5

1 Freshwater Biological Association 2 West Cumbria Rivers Trust, 3 South Cumbria Rivers Trust, 4 North York Moors National Park, 5 Devon Wildlife Trust

The Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM), Margaritifera margaritifera is critically endangered (IUCN

2011), in decline throughout its range and currently protected by the Habitat’s Directive. It is

long-lived with a complex lifecycle; the parasitic larval stage (glochidia) requiring specific host-

fish and pedal-feeding juveniles requiring pristine gravels.

In high numbers FPM have a natural capital role to play through filtering water, cleaning the

water column and stabilising river beds. River restoration requires clear validation. FPM and

its reliance on salmonids provide a useful long-term case study.

The Freshwater Biological Association (FBA) has spent 10 years running and improving an Ark

to conserve adult FPM and augment populations through its captive-rearing system. A recent

3 year national river restoration project has brought delivery and statutory advisory partners

together to raise awareness of the plight of FPM and improve FPM river conditions towards

reintroducing juvenile mussels to their native rivers.

This paper discusses the design of a short-term project requiring annualised deliverables

alongside the wider catchment and historic considerations as well as presenting monitoring

requirements for the reintroduced juveniles.

It describes how FPM river restoration has been prioritised through surveying, studying water

quality and assessing suitable habitat availability for both FPM and salmonids. In some cases

reintroduction sites have been identified and improved ready to receive juveniles captive-

reared at the FBA Ark. The engagement of local funders, land managers, volunteers and

experts has been utilised throughout towards gaining trust, permission, understanding in

business benefit, ‘mussel-power’ and achieving wider catchment benefits.

In spring 2017 seventy 8 year old juvenile FPM were reintroduced into their native river.

These juveniles, reared in a controlled system, were first conditioned in a bespoke-designed

flume and their behaviour to water flow, gravel and diurnal variation studied. The

reintroduction site was chosen for water quality, gravel sheer stress and access for

monitoring. Despite expert advice and careful consideration this remained nerve-wracking

and provided surprises. Maximisation of learning from this step and ideas for improving

monitoring of survival are also considered. A local captive-breeding system has also been set

up providing interesting comparison.

UNDERSTANDING HISTORIC CHANGE AND USING NATURAL PROCESSES TO INFORM FUTURE DECISION MAKING

M. HEMSWORTH1 & S. ROSE1 1 JBA Consulting

Too often flood risk management schemes have been implemented with little regard for

historic catchment change or understanding. A traditional engineering approach has

frequently been applied, walls have been built, channels straightened and the flooding

problem has been pushed elsewhere. Case studies will be described where past river works

have had an engineered form with little consideration of historic catchment change or existing

river processes. We will describe examples where channel straightening has caused significant

loss of channel length and subsequent morphological change and floodplain disconnection.

Any form of river works undertaken to manage flood risk need to understand catchment wide

processes and flow regimes. Crucially, an understanding of how the channel has been

modified over time will improve our understanding of existing channel processes and

responses, which should be used to inform future restoration and flood risk management

schemes. Several examples will be presented where an understanding of historic channel

planform change can be used to inform river restoration and be combined with natural flood

management methods in order to reduce flood risk.

This approach not only has the benefit of restoring and improving natural geomorphic

processes and reinstating natural channel and floodplain form and function, but it has the

added benefit of reducing the need for complex and costly engineering schemes in small rural

villages within catchments with high flood frequencies.

This presentation uses recent examples from across the UK to discuss the lessons learned to

date, potential cost implications and savings, together with the challenges ahead to overcome

the engineering barrier in order make this approach more attractive to landowners and

regulators.

Workshop D – Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: Accounting for

Benefits

MONETISING ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS – THREE CASE STUDIES A. PETTIT1 & C. ANDERTON1

1 JBA Consulting

In a world of restricted budgets and competition for limited funds, the ability to demonstrate

that your project costs are outweighed by the benefits, in addition to achieving the stated

aims and wider benefits, is becoming ever more important. Whilst there are a multitude of

techniques available to consider and qualify project aims and any wider social/environmental

benefits, the failure to quantify the monetary benefits of restoration projects can risk

underselling a business case. We will present practical applications into the monetisation of

environmental benefits for three quite different environmental improvement projects:

Natural Flood Management study for the Yoker and Duntochter Burns in Greater Glasgow

Scotland, driven by the Scottish Flood Risk Management Act 2009 and comprised of two

neighbouring catchments, one an essentially rural catchment and the other an urban

catchment. This case study illustrates the use of widely available socio-environmental

benefits that allowed us to evaluate the potential benefits of the proposed NFM and

compare alternative sites. The study included benefits associated with flood damages,

habitat creation benefits, carbon sequestration, recreational and amenity benefits and

property premiums.

Managed realignment study in Wales where the benefits of habitat creation were

assessed to determine whether more managed approaches to the realignment were valid

and cost effective. The study used an ecosystem services approach to qualify the impacts,

with monetary values assigned to biodiversity gains, food services and climate regulation.

Dis-benefits associated with the loss of farm rent were also incorporated.

A theoretical forestry planting study in Nottinghamshire was used to compare typical

flood benefits of NFM against the wider environmental benefits. Reviews of academic and

grey literature, combined with value transfer approaches were used to assign monetary

benefits to the carbon sequestration of woodland, amenity and recreational benefits,

biodiversity and habitat gains and economic employment benefits. The research showed

that the inclusion of environmental benefits significantly helped to justify the proposals

and were essential when land compensation costs were included within the analysis.

We will highlight practical tools and applications for these three diverse projects and illustrate

the types of benefits that can easily be valued and incorporated within a benefit-cost

assessment or to assist with obtaining partnership funding. The impact of the inclusion (or

exclusion) of these environmental benefits will also be discussed.

WHAT HAVE WETLANDS EVER DONE FOR US? M. BARKER1 & D. GASCA1

1 Atkins Global

What ecosystem services do wetlands provide us with? How can we communicate their value

to an external audience? Should we invest in restoring degraded wetlands or creating new

ones? And how can we unlock funding to create more of what we want? These are all

questions that natural capital valuation can help us answer.

Whilst for many environmentalists the concept of natural capital creates a philosophical

dilemma, the approach provides a common and understandable language that can be used

to evaluate and communicate the benefits natural systems provide to society. The science

behind natural capital, however, is very much in its infancy. There are a number of

complementary and alternative approaches and tools to estimate the value of natural capital.

Formal assessments that fully reflect all ecosystem services can also require time intensive

and costly data collection.

This paper will present a framework for assessment designed for use as part of river and

wetland ecosystems that are located in different landscape settings, provide different

functions for local communities and have been funded by different stakeholder groups,

including government agencies, environmental charities and water companies.

We will discuss the use of natural capital valuation in demonstrating the impact of Camley

Street Natural Park, an urban wetland 1ha in size located in King’s Cross, London. Our

valuation study revealed that Camley Street Natural Park, which is managed by the London

Wildlife Trust, contributes a value of £2.8million to the local economy and society annually.

The Natural Capital valuation enabled London Wildlife Trust to take the first steps in securing

Camley Street’s future. The study was a key piece of evidence for a large, successful capital

fundraising strategy to construct new visitor facilities at the Park, ensuring the park’s legacy

and supporting the sustainable development of the Kings Cross area through delivery of

ecological and social benefits in a rapidly developing part of the city.

We will contrast this urban natural capital valuation with examples from more rural sites,

including Medmerry Managed Realignment Scheme. This has created 184 hectares of new

wetland habitat, now managed as a nature reserve that is delivering biodiversity, flood

defence, recreation and carbon sequestration. An in-depth value transfer study of this coastal

site estimated the net natural capital value of the scheme to be around £3.0million per year.

The paper will also consider potential ways of collecting some of the detailed social data that

are required to complete robust assessments. For example, how do we value the worth of

educational visits? How can we measure the flow of people to, from and through such

wetland sites? And how far do they come to visit them? These types of assessments require

sophisticated and innovative evaluation techniques and some pilot studies will be presented.

Session 6: Parallel Sessions Conference Theatre: Natural Processes and Morphological Adjustment

THE IMPORTANCE OF DECADAL SCALE MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT - THE CASHEN ESTUARY, COUNTY KERRY

C. BARRETT-MOLD1 1 Black & Veatch

This presentation examines the importance of understanding the historical morphological

evolution and processes acting in an estuarine system over decadal timescales when

assessing management for flood risk.

The Cashen Estuary (County Kerry) is typical of the sediment rich, highly dynamic, bedrock

embayed coastline of western Ireland. The wider Cashen/River Feale Catchment is

predominantly agricultural and is managed with an extensive artificial drainage network and

polder system. In order to minimise the duration of flood water on the surrounding land the

main river channel has been historically dredged to maintain effective drainage.

As part of a review of the current flood risk management in the catchment the Office of Public

Works (OPW) commissioned Black & Veatch (BV) to undertake a conceptual

hydromorphological study of the estuary to inform future management decisions. The study

used historic maps and survey information together with present day site surveys, sediment

sampling and hydrological modelling to characterise the current hydromorphology of the

estuary and assess its evolution to the present state. This information was then used to inform

an options appraisal of future flood risk management in the catchment.

Analysis of historical information available identified a relatively rapid progradation of the

dunes at the mouth of the estuary approximately 160 years ago. This resulted in a constriction

that had the effect of throttling and increasing the period of the ebb tide with consequent

impacts on sedimentation and the hydrology of the estuary. Interrogation of the historic

mapping also identified a reduction in the elevation on the polders most likely due to the

improved drainage of the area; this too has had a significant impact on period of flood

inundation of the area. The identification of these key controls has meant that informed

management options can be proposed that are effective and sustainable in the long-term.

LET THE RIVER ERODE! GIVING A GRAVEL-BED RIVER BACK ITS FREEDOM SPACE…WHAT DO YOU GET?

R. WILLIAMS1, H. MOIR2, J. WHEATON3 & E. GILLIES4 1 University of Glasgow, 2 cbec eco-engineering UK Ltd & University of the Highlands and Islands, 3 Utah State

University, 4 cbec eco-engineering UK Ltd & University of Glasgow

River restoration practice is stuck in confusion about the concept of geomorphological

“stability”. There is a tendency to interpret “stability” as “static” and to thus promote

restoration designs that create & maintain a prescribed morphology. Resilient river systems

typically adjust their morphology; such systems yield the much more spatially and temporally

diverse, and productive habitats that are often the aim of restoration interventions. However,

restoration practitioners & managers don’t always identify “increased dynamism” as a design

objective and rarely “let the river do the work”. Broadly, there is irrational fear of channel

adjustment and a misunderstanding of the role that natural bank erosion plays in both

providing important local sediment supply and building diverse instream habitat. Such fear

has been accentuated by a lack of objective approaches to systematically quantify river

morphology & habitat to provide a necessary evidence base. One glimmer of hope, is that

high resolution topographic (HRT) surveys that capture river morphology before and after

restoration are proliferating, enabling the mapping and quantification of patterns of erosion

and deposition. However, such approaches to interpreting topographic change tell us little

about how habitat has been shaped. More traditional, field based approaches to mapping

morphology &habitat are always subjective, with high potential for ‘operator variance’ that

makes repeat surveys virtually quantitatively worthless.

This presentation will answer the question: “if we restore bank erosion & sediment transport

to what was once a dynamic, wandering gravel-bed river, do we get more diverse in-channel

habitat?” We use a series of before & after HRT surveys acquired from one river restoration

scheme (Allt Lorgy, Scotland) to systematically map a time-series of geomorphic unit (GU)

mosaics, using new GU Toolbox (GUT) software. This software implements topographic

definitions to discriminate between a taxonomy of fluvial landforms that have been

developed from an extension of the River Styles framework. There are three tiers of

processing: (1) differentiation between in-channel deposits & overbank areas; (2) classifying

form into one of six categories (mound, bowl, trough, saddle, plane, wall); & (3) mapping GUs

based on a range of attributes such as position & orientation.

Consistent GU mapping shows that restoration of Allt Lorgy has created a rich assemblage of

GU diversity. Results show that once bank protection is removed & sediment supply

augmented, active bank erosion enables the formation of lateral and point bars, diagonal bar

complexes, and instream wood creates forced plunge pools & riffles. This presentation

provides: (i) the first systematic quantification of how geomorphic unit diversity increases

when a gravel-bed river is given freedom space; (ii) a framework for using HRT surveys to test

design hypotheses & conceptual ideas associated with process-based restoration.

SEDIMENT AND MANAGED NATURALIASTION: RESULTS FROM THE MONITORING OF SWINDALE BECK

G. HERITAGE1, L. SCHOFIELD2 & N. ENTWISTLE3 1 AECOM, 2 RSPB, 3 University of Salford

Restoration of rivers in the UK has undergone a significant change over the last decade with

approaches moving away from structural intervention in the form of deflectors and green

bank protection to control unwanted erosion, through to channel and floodplain modification

that is in line with current fluvial processes to increase the chances of longer term success.

The recognition that a river can do a lot of the restoration work itself has become recognised

and river naturalisation, where minimal targeted intervention is designed to rejuvenate fluvial

features and processes, has become a popular approach to improving our river and floodplain

systems. Here we review the short term (18 months) response of Swindale Beck, an active

upland gravel bed river in the English Lake District, to naturalisation. Monitoring of the site

has occurred following works on almost 3 km of watercourse, changing the system from a

straight revetted plane bed system to a mixed, pool-rapid and sinuous single thread system

strongly connected to its former floodplain.

The monitoring programme has measured erosional and depositional processes at the site

using repeat sUAV survey revealing an initial rapid adjustment to the imposed river template,

flushing of exposed silts and redistribution of finer bedload followed by a period of reduced

activity directional change in line with that anticipated for an active sinuous single thread

channel. Coarse sediment movement is seen to be integrated with the embryonic bar forms

to produce a river in dynamic equilibrium with an undisrupted bedload transport regime and

no significant morphological change has been recorded downstream following the initial flush

of finer gravels.

Fine sediment releases occurred as pulses for some time following the works resulting in

significantly elevated suspended loads being released downstream. It is particularly

interesting to note, however, that the bulk gravel monitoring sites located downstream did

not show increases in the volume of fines present in the bed. This suggests that the

downstream monitored reach is a high enough energy system to be robust to

sedimentological change and potentially too that the overall mass of fine sediment was small

enough to be integrated into the wider sediment transport regime.

HOW DO WE PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE PROCESS-BASED RIVER RESTORATION APPROACH?

H. MOIR1 & E. GILLIES2 1 cbec eco-engineering UK Ltd and Highlands and Islands University, 2 cbec eco-engineering UK Ltd and

University of Glasgow

For practical reasons, individual river restoration projects often involve a limited number of

design components; for example, embankment removal/ set-back, channel realignment,

gravel augmentation, large wood placement, wetland establishment/ enhancement etc. For

the same reasons, they also tend to be limited in spatial extents (longitudinally and laterally).

Due to such issues, the application of the ‘process-based’ approach to river restoration is

limited; the factors that are impacting the fundamental controls on physical process cannot

be sufficiently addressed. Ideally, all factors that are affecting the supply, transport and

storage of water, sediments and large wood should be identified and their influence removed

or reduced through appropriate design and implemented measures. Often these fundamental

impacts are manifest out-with the specific river reach where the perceived problem exists.

We present information from a large-scale river restoration project in the headwaters of the

River Nairn, Highland. At the downstream limit of the study site, >60% of the mainstem river

is within the domain of the restoration project; as such, this represents a genuine practical

example of a catchment-scale project. The river had historically been straightened, dredged

and embanked, with the channel becoming significantly perched above its floodplain and

resulting in significant flooding and field drainage issues. The restoration approach was

fundamentally process-based; the root causes of impacts to geomorphic condition were

identified and specific restoration measures applied with the aim of reinstating natural

physical processes, within the practical limitations of site constraint. To achieve this aim,

specific design elements included the realignment of 1.5 km of channel (providing a ‘proto-

channel’ for geomorphic processes to adjust to an equilibrium state), >7000 m3 gravel

augmentation, the placement of 18 large wood structures, >2.5 km embankment removal and

the development of three ‘online’ wetland areas.

The development of the wetland areas represents an especially important restoration

component, in terms of restoration in a UK context. Human intervention has resulted in most

rivers becoming simplified, single-thread channels with the associated loss of physical

complexity and, specifically, wetlands. The impact of this to biological productivity/ diversity

has not been quantified but will be considerable. Specifically, wetlands provide ‘hotspots’ of

nutrient storage and ‘low energy’ physical habitat conditions; both factors are important for

biological productivity.

Post-implementation monitoring of the project is underway; repeat topographical and

sediment surveys reveal rapid channel adjustment towards increased complexity, especially

close to large wood structures. Furthermore, existing biological data (invertebrate samples,

electro-fishing surveys, redd counts) provide a baseline for measurement of the ecological

response to the scheme.

Conference Suite 2: Approaches to Planning and Implementation

RIVER RESTORATION WIPEOUT D. HAMMOND1 & S. WHITTON1

1 Affinity Water

You will all have seen presentations about successful river restoration projects, but what you

may not know is some of the detail behind achieving the final product. The path to success is

often as tricky to navigate as walking up an algae-covered rock-ramp in the dark and you are

guaranteed to get your feet wet, if not more. So, just when you thought it was safe to proceed

along the narrow, slippery path towards your goal, yet another issue or bit of bureaucracy

swings in from the side, knocks you off your feet and sends you back a few places – maybe

back to the Start.

Hazards to negotiate could include:

Landowner/project partner fickleness

Multiple stakeholders with conflicting advice or requirements

Inexperienced regulatory staff lacking pragmatism and sticking to the letter of the policy

Issues with land ownership and designations, such as dealing with Common Land and

“stopping up”, the transfer of land within a local authority from Highways to another

department

Site issues such as buried WW2 bunkers, bombs, Anglo-Saxon graves, unmarked utilities

and even issues with known utilities

Ecology and, in particular, protected species

Local Friends (or should that be “Fiends”?) groups

This presentation aims to illustrate some of these issues and to suggest useful ways to

negotiate your way through the River Restoration Wipeout Course.

ALIEN INVADERS AHEAD! - ARE YOU WATCHING OUT FOR THEM? P. ALDOUS1

1 Thomson Ecology Ltd

Legislation now exists around the control and management of invasive non-native species

(INNS) such as the Infrastructure Act 2015. Whilst these regulations aim to prevent the

introduction of INNS, eradicate their presence after detection and containment if eradication

is not feasible, liabilities exist if INNS are transferred onto third party land. With the cost of

INNS management to the UK of £1.7b everyone needs to play in managing and protecting the

environment from the spread of INNS. Many businesses have adopted biosecurity policies

whether that be in response to foot and mouth, BSE or INNS. But in practice are these

rigorously followed and have the water environment supply chain fully understood the risks

and responded appropriately. Either there is a wakeup call or good news story ahead. This

paper raises awareness of the INNS issue to all participants in river restoration and the

activities that they either individually can take or can apply to the supply chain to ensure that

INNS are not inadvertently spread across the UK.

SOUTH CALDER WATER - CHALLENGES IN URBAN RIVER RESTORATION

C. PITTNER1 1 WSP

SEPA and North Lanarkshire Council, embarked on an ambitious project to restore a reach of

the South Calder Water flowing through Shotts, North Lanarkshire. The South Calder Water

flows through the southeast margins of Shotts through artificial channels and culverts

emerging in natural open channel south of the town. Shotts has a rich industrial history of

coal mining and iron works, spanning 145 years from 1802. Lack of regulation in waste

disposal throughout this industrial period led to significant contamination of surrounding

public open spaces and the water environment. The objectives of the project were to restore

the river to improve ecological potential, and break the pollutant linkage with the

watercourse to improve water quality creating an environment where the local community

can enjoy and interact with a revived waterbody. The presentation will cover the

methodology and process of restored option selection, with particular focus on the many

challenges faced including contamination, mine workings, utilities, topography, restricted

working area, land ownerships, public interface and anti-social behaviour and how each of

these were overcome and managed in the design and delivery of the project.

EROSION RISK SCREENING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN ON MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

H. PARSONS1, K. KEMBLE1 & S. ROBERTS1 1 Jacobs

Changing perception of river engineering solutions to major infrastructure developments

poses not only one of our biggest challenges but also some of our biggest opportunities.

Following decades of engineering rivers to suit infrastructure design, through current

legislation we hold the power to influence design to reduce environmental impacts upon our

watercourses and deliver improvements and mitigation through design. Whilst this change of

approach to designing infrastructure and river engineering is taking greater account of fluvial

geomorphology, its wider catchment impacts and interrelationships with other disciplines,

such as ecology, geotechnical and landscape, incorporating fluvial geomorphology into design

is still often seem as something that can be ‘worked around’. Thus, it often takes bold moves

to influence engineering design at the early stages of projects. Often, drastic design solutions

voiced and immediately dismissed around the design table, become the preferred design

solution. This presentation provides examples of extreme design solutions to major

infrastructure projects that delivers not only benefits to the fluvial functioning of the river but

also provides significant benefits including: improvements to SAC, SSSIs, floodplain

connectivity, water quality, flood risk, river ecology and WFD water body improvements.

Some major infrastructure projects, in particular upgrades to existing infrastructure, carry

with them existing constraints on the fluvial functioning of our rivers, and/or the proximity of

the existing infrastructure is at risk from the fluvial dynamics of the river system, which

potentially puts both life and property at critical risk. Such design solutions pose significant

challenges. This is exacerbated when the watercourses hold designations such as SAC, SSSIs

etc. Where existing infrastructure requiring upgrade, such as road widening, occurs alongside

active river channels, erosion risk often poses a major threat to the existing and future asset.

Erosion control measures often require intrusive engineering and bank and bed stabilisation

measures, such as large boulders along the bank face and buried within the channel to protect

from scour. Where a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required, such design solutions

are unlikely to comply with the HRA. Thus alternative design options need to be sought, which

may involve bold suggestions such as off-line solutions.

Through this work, investigations into river bank erosion risk is becoming an accepted part of

the scoping phase of major infrastructure projects. By voicing bold design options, such as,

‘move the road’ numerous cross-discipline environmental and infrastructure benefits have

been delivered on major projects. Furthermore, through influence in design,

geomorphologists are compiling a portfolio of case studies to promote the benefits we deliver

in engineering design thus improving our power of influence on future projects.

Conference Suite 3: Catchment Scale Thinking

IMPROVING NATURAL FUNCTIONING AT THE CATCHMENT SCALE L. WEBB1

1 Natural England, Catchment Sensitive Farming

This presentation explores the range of measures that have been delivered through

Catchment Sensitive Farming and considers their role in catalysing improved hydrological

function at the wider catchment scale. Integrated delivery for water quality and flood risk has

been trialled in pilot catchments. Lessons learnt from these catchments will be shared using

case study examples. The need to ensure the whole catchment's function is considered when

developing a river restoration programme will be raised and questions will be posed on how

to improve the links between this work and river restoration programmes.

RIVERLANDS - EXPLORING PEOPLE'S CONNECTIONS TO RIVERS AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE

R. HIGGS1 1 National Trust

Riverlands - Healthy rivers and catchments, rich in wildlife, enjoyed and cared for by all.

Only 17% of England’s rivers are in good health, as intensive agriculture, development

pressures and the effects of climate change take their toll, and 13% of freshwater and wetland

species are now threatened with extinction from Britain. Solving this problem requires a

catchment-scale approach with people and organisations working in partnership. We think

it will only be by connecting people with their rivers and surrounding area that there will be

sustainable change and long term benefits.

Riverlands is a programme of work led by a national partnership of the National Trust, the

Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales, and will take place in eleven catchments

in England and Wales, and the first phase of work will concentrate on the following seven:

The Upper Bure (Norfolk), The Upper Conwy (North Wales), The Derwent (Cumbria), The

Poulter (Nottinghamshire), The Doe Lea (Derbyshire), Porlock Vale streams (Somerset), The

Bollin (Cheshire).

The programme has three main aims:

1. Rivers and catchments that are healthy, clean and rich in wildlife

Improved water quality and habitat diversity

Key species recovery in progress

Increased area of valuable habitat

2. Rivers and catchments that are easily accessed, valued and loved for their heritage and

beauty

More people are able to access and enjoy rivers and the surrounding area

More people understand and are inspired by the role rivers play in their lives – past,

present and future

More people have the opportunity to make a difference to the long term care of rivers

and catchments

3. Sustainable long term care for river catchments that has a national impact

Better informed and shared land management practices at a catchment scale that

benefit nature

Better management of flood risk

Improved approach to working in partnership to deliver long term care

People are empowered to take greater ownership of the long term care of the

catchments

Riverlands covers the rivers themselves, the land that drains into them, and the species and

habitats that exist within the catchments. It will also focus on the cultural heritage of the river

catchments, including the ties that have bound people to the rivers in the past, the way that

people’s lives have been influenced by rivers and the surrounding land, and the traditions that

have arisen in relation to the rivers. A programme approach will give this work real impact on

a national scale.

Our approach is to start by exploring people’s connections rivers: as neighbours, users,

visitors or landowners. Through this we will find partners, advocates and supporters and from

there will flow land use change and local ownership. The programme will start in 2018 and

this first phase will be completed in 2024.

ARE WE ACHIEVING INTEGRATED CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE? E. D. ROLLASON1, L. J. BRACKEN1, R. J. HARDY1 & A. R. G. LARGE2

1 Durham University, 2 Newcastle University

The principles of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) are increasingly embedded into

catchment management policy in England and Wales. This has resulted in the need for

community engagement at all levels of catchment intervention, from the development of

catchment management plans to the implementation of individual management

interventions. However, previous research has demonstrated the difficulties of achieving

meaningful participation at scale and has highlighted how ordinary catchment management

continues to predominate in many cases despite the policy shift.

This research explores how ICM is undertaken in practice, using the example of the Greening

the Twizell Partnership, an innovative catchment partnership established in the Twizell Burn

catchment, a tributary of the River Wear in NE England, to explore wide ranging

environmental and socio-economic catchment interventions. Through participation in the

activities of the catchment partnership, and participatory research with communities within

the catchment, the research explores how ICM interventions are enacted in practice, and how

these are experienced by the communities. The research finds that at a catchment level,

limited engagement with communities is undertaken to shape the direction of catchment

management activities. However, in the planning and implementation of works the research

finds that our existing practices of project development and funding are not flexible enough

to allow project scopes to be (re-)shaped by local concerns or priorities, leading to

engagement activities being avoided or ignored until after projects have been planned and

funding obtained. In addition, the fragmentation of responsibilities for catchment

management between many agencies means that information about local concerns or

priorities identified in one project is often not transferred between agencies, meaning that

communities experience ICM not as an integrated process but as a fragmented series of

apparently disconnected interventions delivered by different agencies.

The research demonstrates that the principles of ICM have the potential to deliver more

effective and unified catchment management. However, although catchment management

policy has been effectively developed to enshrine these principles, there is a pressing need to

determine how our practices of catchment management can be made more flexible to

integrate local community concerns and priorities more effectively.

NETWORK TOPOLOGY: THE "MISSING LINK" IN UNDERSTANDING CATCHMENT CONTROLS ON INSTREAM HABITATS?

E. L. HEASLEY1, N. J. CLIFFORD2, J. D. A. MILLINGTON1 & M. A. CHADWICK1 1 Kings College London, 2 Loughborough University

The structure of the river network, or network topology, is a fundamental feature of the

catchment linking catchment-level controls to instream functioning. In particular, confluences

in the network have been shown to induce morphological and ecological changes in channels

due to inputs of water and sediment from incoming tributaries. Yet river topology is often

either over-simplified or ignored by catchment-scale assessments, despite variation in the

density of the river network within catchments. This presentation asks to what extent the

density of the river network influences instream habitat diversity.

Original research is presented that uses data from the River Habitat Survey to identify how

instream habitat diversity is impacted by the spatial position and characteristics of

confluences in the river network. We will also introduce a new tool to account for network

topology, named Network Density, which was designed to be easily calculated using GIS for

any catchment. Network Density is shown to offer better explanations of habitat diversity

scores than the simplistic stream order variable.

The new approach is applied to the Demonstration Test Catchments (Hampshire Avon, Eden,

Tamar and Wensum). The results illustrate how habitat diversity generally increases as the

network becomes denser, and how low-energy confluences impact habitat diversity most.

Finally, the presentation discusses how including network topology in catchment-scale

assessments may improve our ability to predict which sections of the river network may

sustain naturally higher habitat diversity and which tributary inputs at confluences drive

heightened habitat diversity. This could enable more strategic targeting for sustainable river

restoration and potentially target conservation of flows on tributaries that impact instream

habitat diversity.

Session 7: Conference Theatre

INCISED LOWLAND SAND-BED STREAMS IN THE NETHERLANDS K. C. HUISING1, R. C. M. VERDONSCHOT2 & M. VELDHUIS1

1 Waterboard Vallei en Veluwe, 2 Wageningen Environmental Research

In many lowland streams in Northwestern Europe the number and the magnitude of peak

discharges increased due to land use changes and climate change. This often leads to channel

incision and degradation of the stream ecosystem. One of those streams is the Leuvenumse

beek in the Netherlands. Here, the Waterboard Vallei en Veluwe and the nature conservation

agency Natuurmonumenten are trying to restore the stream by artificially supplying sand to

the stream, creating sand slugs which elevate the streambed and reconnect the stream with

its original riparian zone. The sand is supplied from 15 locations along 6 kilometres of the

stream and dispersed by the stream naturally. This according to the ‘Building with Nature’

principles. Besides this, large woody debris were placed in the stream to prevent new incision.

To assess the impact of this restoration measure on the stream ecosystem, bed morphology,

substrate heterogeneity, macroinvertebrate assemblage structure and riparian vegetation

composition were monitored since the start of the measures in 2014. After recovery from the

initial disturbance, an increase in instream microhabitat heterogeneity and current velocity

was observed, which was also reflected in the macroinvertebrate community recorded.

Rewetting of the riparian zone resulted in the establishment of fringe of marsh vegetation

along the stream margins. In conclusion, locally supplying sand to incised lowland streams has

resulted in noticeable short-term ecological effects, indicating the potential of this rarely

applied restoration measure.

RESTORING UK CATCHMENT SCALE BIODIVERSITY - RIVERS, LAKES, PONDS AND WETLANDS

S. J. CLARKE1 1 National Trust

We are increasingly recognising the need to view river restoration at greater spatial scales,

placing reach scale restoration in the context of both upstream and downstream reaches and

the wider catchment. Addressing the needs of freshwater wildlife requires this and more. I

will explore how we might look across the range of different freshwater habitats to take a

catchment or landscape scale approach to freshwater conservation. Using examples from

completed and ongoing National Trust projects, I will show how a greater understanding of

the ecology of key species and the interactions of stressors might help us develop better

approaches.

ri ver restoration centre 18 annual network conference...eric gillies (cbec eco-engineering)...

Documents