Welcome tothe River Restoration Centre

12th Annual Network Conference

Who we are and what we do!• A not-for-profit organisation

• We promote best practice river restoration and river management

• We collect and collate information and

provide River Restoration advice

• 7 Staff, a board of directors and expert advisers

Information Dissemination

• Monthly bulletins – opportunity to let everyone know what have you been doing?

• Electronic Newsletters - longer articles

• Facebook - post your comments

and video clips

• Site visits for members

• EU-wide through the

RESTORE project

A New Era

• Responding to consultation documents to demonstrate how river restoration can be beneficial to delivery- Sustainable flood management, Scotland- Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management

for England and Wales

• SSSI River Restoration plans through PSA targets- Now EU WFD and Habitat Directives funding for protected areas (SAC rivers)

The Big Society –New Opportunities

• Spelman pledges £110m to revive lifeless bodies of water

• Association of River Trusts and River Groups – working to achieve GES on 33 catchments

• Local Partnerships –e.g. On-Trent and this conference, Wild Trout Trust

• Local Councils - Education (Chelmsford, Ipswich, Bath and North East Somerset)

• Water Companies (Yorkshire, Southern and Wessex (boardmember)

This Year?• Weir removal opportunities

- River Irwell identified as one of the 10 WFD pilot projects. RRC scoping study can help identify projects which may include potential weir removal, fish passage etc)

- Using the RRC database to improve the evidence base forweir removal

This Year• Monitoring using RRC

guidance document

‘PRAGMO’ for Mayes

Brook, East London

• Project launched

16th March by Minister

for the Environment)

This Year

• Green Infrastructure Initiative (Bath and North East Somerset Council)

- River Avon through Bath

Return to Nottingham• Good to be back again after the 10 year anniversary

• A central location and

competitive

• New 1 day format with

nearly 200 delegates

• Please visit the RRC stand

and enter our draw for an

Easter Egg – just fill a VERY short

questionnaire there!

• And feedback forms – please!

Thank you to ALL our Funders

Core Funders

Key Organisation Sectors

RRC Organisations by Sector

Angling Association

C. Agency, SNH, CCW

Central Government (DoE, DoT, DWI)

Charitable Trust

Community Group

Consultants

Contractors

Fish trust

Fisheries, Fish Trust, etc

Landowners

Landscape Architects / Planners

Local Government

National Parks

NGO

Non-RR Related

Product Manufacturers

Product Suppliers

Rivers Trust, RVIs

University

Unknown

Utilities

Wild Life Trusts, WWF

Corporate Members

Conference Sponsors

Emerging trends in river management & restoration: an agenda for the early Twenty-first century

Peter W. DownsUniversity of Plymouth, UK

& Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, CA, USA

peter.downs@plymouth.ac.uk

River Conservation

& Management

NOW

Water Resources

Hazards Conservation

RC&M is now pluralistic: multiple management

possibilities according to degrees of environmental

degradation resulting from previous management

measures and river basin development…

EROSION REGULATIONWATER CYCLING

1. Philosophy: truly Integrated River Basin Management?

MEA 2005

Benefits

► Combats variability in IRBM concepts: ES is a common language

► A focus on positive action…unlike protective policies

► Rivers and wetlands are extremely valuable…

Dodds et al 2008

Debates & challenges…► Increased emphasis on human well-being will change approaches and move

money away from previously successful strategies Terbough 1999; McCauley 2006; Woodroffe et al 2005, McCauley 2006

► Market-based approaches will not provide biodiversity returns Schwartz 2000

► ES expands the breadth of landscapes for conservation, engages the private sector, helps sustainable land use practices, avoids exclusion-related poverty Goldman and Tallis 2009, Adams et al 2004

Ecosystems Services ARE coming…Challenges:

► Defining „ecological production functions‟, especially across system boundaries

► Generating estimates of value – linking ecological and socio-economic model

Tallis and Polasky 2009

Ref inepost-restoration

conceptual model

SPECIFY

REFERENCE & IMPAIRED

CONCEPTUAL MODELS

ESTABLISH

ECOSYSTEM

GOALS/OBJECTIVESPROBLEM

STATEMENT

SPECIFY POST-RESTORATION CONCEPTUAL

MODEL

PLAN / REFINE RESTORATION

ACTIONS

Undertaketargetedresearch

Undertakepilot project

Implementreach

restoration

Explore policy alternatives, resolve

performance conf licts using simulation models

Identify key restoration parameters and

supporting actions

RESTATECONCEPTUAL

MODEL & EVALUATE

ADJUST SYSTEM UNDERSTANDING

ANALYSIS OF SUCCESS CRITERIA

Redef inemodels

Revisegoals/objectives

DATA COLLECTION

AND MONITORING

Continue with

actions / full

implementation

IDENTIFY RESTORATION CHALLENGES

Apply restoration f irst principles to support

naturalization

Incorporate resource management concerns

& stakeholder input

Conduct pre-design monitoring and

predictive modeling

Reassessproblem

Adaptive Management

Spent time struggling with

Passive vs active AM in river envts

Healey ‘ladder’ version of AM loop; Downs et al in press

2. Management: Cycles,

Inclusivity, and Riparian

Land Control

In practice, here?

This is potentially the departure

point for a new adaptive loop,

implying also economic and social

reorganization

Pre-project

ProjectAssessment

Evaluation

Adaptive management 2.0 – multiple nested cycles

Dearing 2008 (‘potential’ polarity reversed)

Adaptive Cycles – of ecosystems and

institutions

Key concept: Progress towards

sustainability is not linear - includes periods

of „release‟ (collapse) and reorganization

“Panarchy”: a hierarchical structure linking

nature, humans and combined social-

ecological systems in never-ending

adaptive cycles of growth Holling 2001 (p392); Gunderson and Holling (eds) 2002

(Confusingly) panarchy is also “an inclusive,

universal system of governance in which all

may participate meaningfully.”

Sewell and Salter 1995

-+

Conservationists in the corridor 1:

land acquisition by public trusts

► Cause-effect-based management and restoration is a river corridor activity –so gain control of the land?

► The Nature Conservancy - long since practised this approach (50 M ha; 8,000 km) for preservation – by 2000, 60% of land trusts were in easements

► Westcountry Rivers Trust: since 1995 moved out of the channel - from saving salmon to farming BMPs and easements

► Critiques:

Limited access reserves can be inefficient

Unsustainable in areas of population

expansion Goldman and Tallis 2009

Acquisition/easement area too small, too

isolated, too subject to change

Under climate change may not address

species range issues

Example: Santa Clara River Parkway: CA Coastal Conservancy

► Target: 500-yr flood corridor over 60-km reach

► Acquire and restore existing habitat and flood‐prone property from willing sellers

► Objectives: habitat, flood risk, water quality & recharge, lower cost recreation/education

► Acquired approx 1,300 ha of a 4,000-5,000 ha target since 2000

“The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a state agency that uses

entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources, and

to provide access to the shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public

agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.”

► Wetland mitigation: since the early 1990s

USACE/EPA system for designating wetland credits to make practical Section

404 of the Clean Water Act – a marketplace for approved off-site wetland

restoration (by a third party) in return for development elsewhere

► Stream mitigation banking: since 2000

In North Carolina: state Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to create

wetland and stream mitigation credits. FY2005-06 = 95 km of stream

restoration generating approx. $71M of stream credits.

Credit = Stream Mitigation Unit: quantity = linear feet of stream; quality– no

national indicators, reduced to „bundled‟ morphology without biological input.

► Issues

1. implicit that SMB allows destruction of ecosystem function elsewhere;

2. trading ratios encourage restoration over enhancement or preservation

elsewhere

3. no assessment of function, despite state and federal requirement…but

disaggregated function credits would be problematic too (Lave et al 2008)

Conservationists in the corridor 2:

the conservation business

“RS was formed to improve the quality of environmental restoration and mitigation by

locating and acquiring the best properties, planning their restoration using advanced

science and technology, constructing them in the most conscientious manner, and

maintaining and monitoring them... in perpetuity, by environmentally protective

conservation easements.”

www.restorationsystems.com

Carbonton Dam removal summer 2005: Photos courtesy of Adam Riggsbee

Example: Carbonton dam removal: Restoration Systems LLC

“RS was formed to improve the quality of environmental restoration and mitigation by

locating and acquiring the best properties, planning their restoration using advanced

science and technology, constructing them in the most conscientious manner, and

maintaining and monitoring them... in perpetuity, by environmentally protective

conservation easements.”

www.restorationsystems.com

Carbonton Dam removal summer 2005: Photos courtesy of Adam Riggsbee

Example: Carbonton dam removal: Restoration Systems LLC

3. River management & environmental non-

stationarity: “You want me to predict what?”

► Prediction is especially important where human impact is comparable to the effect of classical processes, and consists both of physical and social forces including properties of consciousness, intention, and design: landscape planning, engineering and management. Haff 2003

Policy Response:

► CEQA: a lead agency must make “a good faith effort to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a proposed project, and whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant” State of CA Technical Advisory Note June 19, 2008

► WFD: does not consider climate change explicitly, but could conceivably alter the reference conditions for management targets; new EU research requires consideration of climate change Acreman and Ferguson 2010

Lancaster and Grant, 2003

Geology

Land

CoverHillslope

gradient

► Anthropocene period of „great acceleration‟ since 1950 – land use change by far the dominant force for environmental change

Example: Gaming on risk (asset) assessment using GIS

…and use for scenario testing

Field calibrate;

validate if possible…

GEO

HAB

POP

http://software.nced.umn.edu/ripple/index.html

Example: identifying bottlenecks with

integrated biophysical lifecycle models

1. Evidence for restoration success is very limited

2. Few projects have been assessed properly - very little funding for monitoring; very little rigorous assessment (NRRSS);

3. Restored lands are NEVER worth as much as native lands (Dodds et al 2008), so mitigation sites need particular attention (Palmer et al 2007);

4. Lack of biodiversity improvements in restoration because very few schemes were designed for it: projects are rarely implemented based on metrics of impairment (Palmer et al 2007 – NRRSS project)

5. Need project tracking; stakeholder involvement leads to better documentation (Palmer et al 2007)

6. Critical need for better planning, esp. baseline data (Downs and Kondolf 2002; Downs et al 2011)

4. Accountable Management:

You Can‟t Manage What You Don‟t Measure

…how to improve?

NOAA Fisheries / USFWS April 2009; http://www.restorationreview.com/

Planning and the importance of place:

River RAT

Towards data rich monitoring: more detail, more

frequently, and under more „difficult‟ conditions…

Passive bed load

monitoring:

ADCP

Hydrophones

Fish

counts:

Smaller PIT tags

www.reesscan.org

Photo by Toby Minear

Channel morphology

change: TLSLeica ScanStation II

Thinking differently about „projects‟:

Bonneville Environmental Foundation

Originally 1- to 2-year grants to community organizations

Review concluded that short-term funding was ineffective:

“It tended to encourage piecemeal, site-specific projects, while

discouraging sustained monitoring and an adaptive, watershed-

scale approach. To this end, we proposed a ten-year commitment to

provide funding for monitoring and evaluation, sustained technical

support, and independent peer review services…in an effort to

advance accountable and increasingly effective restoration.”

Reeve et al 2006; Fisheries; 2007 Ecological Restoration

A river management

& restoration agenda?

► Extending „Management with nature‟ Downs & Gregory 2004

► Broader (health, development, catchment scale), and ecosystem service based on what you SHOULD do, not what you can‟t

► Based on axes of potential, connectivity, and resilience

► More creative conservation through river corridor „acquisition‟

► Will accommodate predicted future conditions including GEC, cumulative impact and catchment historical legacy

► More rigorously planned (place-based), monitored (using novel techniques), and assessed (integrally funded) – requires a new funding model.

Restoring Europe’s Rivers

RESTORELIFE+ Project 2010 to 2013

Martin Janes, RRC

RESTORE – restoring Europe’s rivers

• Financially supported by the EU LIFE+ through the new Information and Communication strand.

• RESTORE encourages the restoration of European rivers towards a more natural state. This delivers increased ecological quality, flood risk reduction, and social and economic benefits.

• Six project partners, covering 21 countries within four regional groupings. €1.8M between 2010 and 2013.

RESTORE PartnersRESTORE is implemented by 6 partners:

• Environment Agency for England and Wales (EA),

• UK River Restoration Centre (RRC),

• Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE),

• Italian River Restoration Centre (CIRF),

• Dutch Gov’t Service for Land and Water Management (DLG)

• Wetlands International (WI).

The project works closely with European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR).

Financial support is provided by EU-Life

and the UK Department of Environment, food and Rural Affairs (defra)

Countries covered by RESTORE

Regional Leads

N – Finland (SYKE),

E – Netherlands/ Romania (DLG),

S – Italy (CIRF),

W – UK (RRC).

Remaining countries via wider media & communication.

RESTORE common themesCosts and benefits• Long term economic benefits• Costing river restoration• Sourcing funding

What do we mean by RR• What is river restoration• How to undertake river restoration

Drivers through directives• Contribution to flood risk reduction• Contribution to increased biodiversity• How to meet WFD RR targets• Climate change adaptation• Renewable energy conflicts

People and communities• Integrating with urban planning• Social and cultural wellbeing

Regional issues and concerns

East• Access to funds and information,

few networks, promote understanding

South• Only little progress outside France,

issues of ephemeral rivers, water quality, bioengineering vs RR

West• Concept understood, needs

evidence, funding, guidance, political & planning buy-in, public safety.

North• Fisheries and hydropower drivers,

mixed levels of networks in operation.

3 years - 3 stages• Stage 1 – information collection and collation. What exists as

best practice river restoration & implementation and how is this needed by different countries?

• Stage 2 – engagement. Building the networks of policy makers, river basin managers and practitioners and forming the information resource.

• Stage 3 – Knowledge transfer. Web based database tool for information sharing, long-term continuation through the European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR).

• Drivers

• Barriers

• Policies (EU, Basin, National, Regional)

• Existing networks

• Main audience

• Projects

• Best practice

1. Information

• Workshops

• Seminars

• Field visits

• Meetings

• Conference

2. Engagement• Social Media

• Newsfeeds

• Website

• Press releases

3. Knowledge Transfer• RESTORE WIKI tool for projects

• Pooled resources & better information sharing

• Greater confidence in implementation

• Strengthened and new EU river restoration networks

• ECRR to take on the outputs post 2013..

WIKI toolWeb platform for river

restoration practices, approaches, benefits and contacts

Similar in function to the FORECASTER tool (IWRM-net).

Allows user to enter and update info.

Google maps based referenced case studies and dataset.

RESTORE Outputs

• 36 events in over 10 countries

• 1200 persons engaged through events

• 500 case studies on the WIKI database

• 90,000 persons through project outreach

• International River Restoration Conference

Better river restoration implementation based on sound science & best practice through joined up policy, planning and funding.

Your participation in RESTORE

RESTORE projects and contacts

• Initial leads and known associates

RESTORE Advisory Board

• Other European restoration centres and networks (Iberia, INBO, ICPDR, ..)

• Wider peer review and input (call for interest!)

• UK Contacts:

– EA (Project lead) – Toni Scarr, project manager.

– RRC (W. Region lead) – Nick Elbourne, info officer.