WORKSHOP 1: INTEGRATING SUDS INTO RIVER RESTORATION (Facilitated by Robert Bray, Robert Bray Associates Limited1).

In this workshop four questions were posed:

1. What are the benefits of SUDS for river restoration?

2. What are the design criteria of SUDS for river restoration?

3. What mechanisms are there to promote SUDS in river restoration?

4. Perceived barriers preventing integration of SUDS into river restoration?

In groups, delegates brainstormed their responses to these questions.

1. What are the benefits of SUDS for river restoration? - Water Quality: SUDS improve water quality as well as reduce the rate of runoff, typically

by using swales, reedbeds, ponds, etc. If correctly designed and located they reduce the effects of diffuse as well as point source pollution.

- Biodiversity: Different types of SUDS can create different types of habitats, but any additional habitat created is likely to complement river restoration schemes downstream, enriching both areas.

- Flood Flows: SUDS will attenuate the inflow to a restored river reach, thereby reducing the capacity that needs to be provided. Alternatively, SUDS will increase the standard of flood protection of any given river scheme.

- Landscape and amenity: Well designed SUDS can complement the natural landscape of a restored river, and provide a ‘green chain’ for local amenity.

- Groundwater recharge: In urban areas increased recharge via SUDS can improve the base flow of restored rivers, hence ensuring that aquatic species do not suffer during dry periods.

- Public awareness: SUDS that are visible to the public, and can be seen to connect to and send water to a restored river, are more likely to encourage the public to think of water as a valuable resource, rather than as a waste product to be disposed of as quickly as possible.

2. What are the design criteria of SUDS for river restoration? - Outlet: The location and design of the outlet must complement the works done to restore a

river, and not be an insensitive structure.

- Habitat & Ecology: SUDS habitats should ideally complement those of any adjacent river restoration scheme, so that a biodiverse ecology can be established by the two schemes.

1 ROBERT BRAY ASSOCIATES LIMITED Landscape Architects Fairfield, Coronation Road, Rodborough, Stroud, Glos, GL5 3SB Tel: 01453 764885 Fax: 01453 765545 Email: bob@robertbrayassociates.co.uk www:sustainabledrainage.co.uk

- Flooding: The SUDS components should not be subject to river flooding, as not only will this reduce their effectiveness, but there also the risk that pollution may be carried to the river.

- Amenity: Wherever possible SUDS should be visible to the public, and ideally linked to any adjacent river restoration scheme, complete with interpretation boards to enhance public understanding of water and aquatic/riverine habitats.

- Maintenance: The ongoing maintenance of SUDS is important, in order to realise all the potential benefits for the site, the SUDS and the adjacent river. A key aspect is who will have ownership of SUDS.

- Water quality: SUDS should aim to ensure that the quality of the discharge is at least as good as that of the receiving watercourse, both in terms of chemicals and of sediment load.

- Flow: SUDS need to be designed to incorporate flexibility for increased flow conditions (climate change), with sufficient storage capacity to ensure that maximum design flows into the receiving watercourse are not exceeded.

3. What mechanisms are there to promote SUDS as part of river restoration? - Legislative framework: Promotion of SUDS, regardless of it complementing river

restoration, needs an improved legislative framework. It is possible that this could link with river restoration works.

- Holistic thinking: Opportunities exist in the preparation of local plans, or even large-scale developments, to consider the water from roof to river. An integrated scheme to reduce runoff and pollution, and to enhance habitats and biodiversity, can then be promoted.

- Financial incentives: Planning authorities are able to enter into S106 agreements to ensure that developers pay for environmental enhancements, and this can include river restoration projects.

- Water quality: New developments have specific conditions on discharge consents, and compliance with these can usually be achieved by adopting SUDS, possibly in conjunction with river restoration.

- Ecological gains: Can be achieved if SUDS and river restoration are promoted as an entity, providing a wide range of habitats, with the aim of increasing biodiversity.

- Public awareness: The advantages of SUDS can be better seen when the discharge leads straight into a river restoration scheme, and the linkages become clear, albeit with the help of interpretation boards.

- Wildlife groups: Those with an interest in rivers can raise awareness and promote SUDS as an integral part of river restoration, based on improvements to water quality, habitat and biodiversity.

- De-culverting: When the opportunity arises to remove watercourses from culverts or hard engineered beds and banks, either due to development, or because the structure is in a poor state, the construction of swales or restored reaches of river (depending in the size of the watercourse) should be considered as a priority.

4. Perceived barriers preventing integration of SUDS into river restoration? - Adoption: Adoption of SUDS remains a problem, as any adoption is unlikely to be by the

same organisation that promotes or maintains river restoration schemes. This may only be overcome by changes in legislation.

- Lack of knowledge and understanding: Currently SUDS and river restoration are generally seen as addressing two distinct phases of the water cycle, by different organisations. The linkages have not been made, and integrated schemes are not promoted.

- Funding: As funding is likely to be by two separate organisations the integration of SUDS and river restoration is unlikely. An exception would be if a comprehensive scheme were required by the planning authority as a condition of a planning approval.

- Space: As underground storage takes less space than surface SUDS such as swales, ponds and other above-ground installations developers prefer the underground systems. These provide fewer opportunities to integrate with any potential river restoration schemes.

RRC Conference 2006

RRC Conference 2006RRC Conference 2006

WFD and River Restoration Workshop:WFD and River Restoration Workshop:Delivering WFD objectives through river restorationDelivering WFD objectives through river restoration

Stuart Greig: SEPA Water Policy Unit

RRC Conference 2006

FormatFormat

• Presentation 1 (M. Marsden) (10 mins)-Overview of WFD requirements and links to policy and planning tools

• 10 min Q and A.

• Presentation 2 (S. Greig) (10 mins)-Summary of challenges and opportunities.

• Open discussion following format of the questionnaire

RRC Conference 2006

OutcomesOutcomes

• Describe the need to adopt a programmatic approach to restoration.

• Clarify issues surrounding river restoration/remediation and the WFD,

• Provide a forum for attendees to discuss issues/concerns etc.

• Obtain feedback to help SEPA meet the challenge of river restoration.

RRC Conference 2006

BackgroundBackground

• 8827km of Scottish rivers (35% of total river length) at risk from morphological pressures.

• Primary pressures:Agricultural/forestry encroachment (and land management)River Engineering, inc. flood control works Impoundments

RRC Conference 2006

Agriculture/Forestry encroachment and land management

RRC Conference 2006

River engineering: small-large scale

RRC Conference 2006

Impoundments

RRC Conference 2006

The River Basin Management Planning ProcessThe River Basin Management Planning Process

The most important period for the new river basin planning process is still to come. The large part of the work to develop the planning system and produce the plan (with others) must be complete for

the draft RBMP in 2008.

RRC Conference 2006

National Advisory Group

WFD (and other) monitoring data Area Advisory

Groups

Legislation/regs(e.g. CAR)

Internal SEPA working groups

Existing catchment/ management plans

Conservation groups/plans

National Restoration working group

Consultation (stakeholders

RRC Conference 2006

Key challenges Key challenges

• Large spatial extent of pressures,

• Lack of monitoring information/data

• Risks (environmental and economic) of implementing inappropriate remediation measures,

• Difficulties identifying causes of degradation (e.g. catchment verses local controls)

• Difficulties identifying methods to reverse damage.

• Cost of undertaking remediation/restoration activities often prohibitive

• Variety and number of groups involved in managing/protecting/restoring freshwaters

RRC Conference 2006

Ways forward….Ways forward….• There is a need for more research, particularly,

cross-discipline.• We need to work with rivers, e.g. Brookes stream

power rules for identifying rivers to target for passive/assisted remediation.

• Need to plan restoration at a catchment scale – not local scale ad hoc restoration

• Must aim to restore natural processes, not simply reinstate features (e.g. meanders, riffles).

• Need to develop improved methods (Standards?) for planning, prioritise and implementing remediation

• Need to make better use of new tools and data e.gaerial photography…

• Need to consider new methods of funding remediation works, e.g. habitat banks.

RRC Conference 2006

QuestionsQuestions

• Is there a need for new planning tools to support prioritisation of remediation effort?

• What are the most effective catchment wide measures for the first RBMP?

• What lessons can we learn to help co-ordinating remediation effort?

Overview of the Water Framework Directive and associated UK

legislation.

Martin Marsden WFD Implementation

Manager

Scotland: morphological impacts

River length(Km) (%)

Definitely at risk 3600 14%

Probably at risk 5200 21%

Water body at risk

Classification/further risk assessment

Identify cost-effective combination of measures

Is water body "heavily modified"

TEST: measures - must be feasible & proportionate

Achieve good ecological potential

Achieve good status by 2015, 2021 or 2027

Achieve less stringent objectives

TEST: measures - no significant impact upon use

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Land Drainage

Recreation

Industry

Transport and communication

Fishing

Flood defence

Urban Development

Electricity, Gas and Water Supply

Agriculture and Forestry

Length (km)

HMWB

HMWB

HMWB

Water Framework DirectiveRiver Basin Districts in UK

and Ireland

River Restoration Centre Conference 2006 SEPA Workshop Questions Panel: Martin Marsden (Head of Water Policy and UKTAG Chair); Stuart Greig (Senior Policy Officer- hydromorphology and engineering on freshwaters) Questions from the floor and responses from the panel.

1. How was capacity determined for MIMAS and will this information be available?

Capacity is determined from a series of semi-quantitative values that were informed by professional judgement (panel of UK experts from ecology and geomorphology). All values were peer reviewed and a field trialling project was completed to assess the performance of the tool. A longer term programme of empirical testing and validation is being planned.

2. How sensitive is the tool to critical / special habitats? The tool protects aquatic ecosystems and, therefore, considers important processes and features that sustain aquatic ecosystems. Protected species and conservation needs are not considered in MImAS, and will be assessed through a separate regulatory procedure.

3. How will the tools actually be implemented? Data to run the tools will be supplied from field surveys and a new database of morphological pressures and a new database of channel types (both due by summer 2007).

4. Will the restoration regulations allow historical structures to be removed? Yes. Different funding mechanisms are currently being reviewed, these include grant awards from the Scottish Executive and methods to allow developers to undertake remediation works on other rivers to offset likely impacts associated with new developments (mitigation measures trading system).

5. How essential is the 2015 deadline – there is a lot of expectation that a lot will happen prior or at this date. In how many of the water bodies will timescales be modified? Less stringent objectives be applied?

It is vital to establish long-term and realistic objectives for each river basin cycle. In many instances, it will be more effective (economically and environmentally) to remove unnecessary structures and management programmes and allow the river to self recover. This requires appreciation of the long-term natural recovery pathways and time-scales. However, in other instances, there will be quicker solution, e.g. remove a migratory impediment. The use of less stringent objectives will be in direct response to these types of considerations.

6. Costs presented showed that morphology was the cheapest (£ per km), is cost how improvements will be decided upon? Will this be the only consideration?

In some instances, morphological measures may be the most costs effective method of improving the quality of a Water body. A variety of criteria must be considered when identifying remedial measures including feasibility, likelihood of success, cost, social justice, link to other initiatives and work programmes (inc flood management and biodiversity).

7. POM required by 2012 objectives required to be met by 2015. This leaves 3 years to put in place actions and achieve objectives. Is there a danger that measures / work will be rushed and done badly / will not work, wasting resources and not achieving objectives??

It will be the responsibility of the National and Area Advisory Groups to co-ordinate efforts, and feasibility and likelihood of success will be an important consideration when selecting measures. For the 1st RBMP, it is likely that efforts will focus on fairly simple methods to restore rivers (e.g. remove weirs, establish riparian corridors). The development of tools to improve planning of remedial efforts will be important. Also, as the Directive is already here, we will have to be adaptive in our approach to undertaking remedial measures- learning by doing. A lot has been learnt over the last few decades, and we can now put into practice what we have learnt.

8. How do the lack of knowledge on the links between biology and morphology affect selection of

remedial measures? Again, we need to accept these limitations, and adapt our plans as and when new information becomes available. However, much has been learnt over the past decades. It is often the detail of these relationships that is poorly understood. Generally, we can be confident that basic improvements to river management will aid recovery of freshwater ecology and improve the amenity value of freshwaters.

9. Someone noted the importance of local knowledge to determine pressures on ecology.

Absolutely, and the Area advisory groups are a means of ensuring that local knowledge and information is incorporated.

10. It was noted there is a huge job to do integrating and coordinating projects that will address all pressures over a large scale. Also the integration of public money and policies / public bodies.

Agreed, and the first river basin cycle will in some ways be an important learning process, which is another reason for not being overly ambitious in the first cycle.

11. Who will be leading the POM and leading projects? Where will the money come from to do this?

The National and Area advisory groups will co-ordinate and prioritise efforts. These groups will comprise members form a variety of bodies and groups. Stakeholder consultation will also be an important element of these groups.

River Restoration Centre Conference 2006 SEPA Workshop Review Overview

Did you find the workshop: Responses Very informative 3 Informative 11 Occasionally informative 1 Uninformative 2

Note: Only around half the attendees completed the questionnaire. Summary of responses to questionnaire The feedback was primary from consultancies, agency staff and conservation bodies. Q What do you see as the main planning/implementation challenges faces those involved in restoring rivers to meet WFD objectives (e.g. co-ordination of resources)?

Funding 9 Stakeholder engagement 5 Scale of problem 4 Availability of technical expertise 4 Timetable 3 Planning/prioritisation tools 2 Lack of links to flood management 2 Lack of strategic framework (co-ordinating effort) 2 Other 3

Q What do you see as the main technical challenges facing those involved in river restoration/ remediation (e.g. lack of monitoring data)?

Lack of expertise 5 Gaps in science 4 Lack of tools 4 Lack of data 2 Post project appraisal 2 Lack of guidance material 2 Cross discipline thinking 1 Availability of resources 1

Q What pressures/impacts do you believe remediation efforts should target over the first River Basin Planning Cycle (next 8 years), and why?

Land-use management 6 Obstructions to fish passage 4 Reconnecting floodplains 3 Unnecessary river engineering 3 Ad hoc Flood defence works 2

Q Based on your previous experience of undertaking/co-coordinating remediation efforts, what do you believe are the keys to identifying and implementing successful remediation measures?

Engaging stakeholders 4 Establishing the right team (expertise) 4 Availability of data 3 Identifying a Strategy 2 Adopting a catchment scale approach 2 Finding funding 2 Accepting uncertainty 1

Q What would you identify as the most common cause of unsuccessful remediation measures/projects?

Lack of data/monitoring 6 Don’t consider geomorphology 5 Not taking a catchment approach 4 Poor planning 3 Poor design 2 Lack of longer term maintenance 1 Time constraints 1

RRC Conference 2006 Workshop 3: Managing partnership projects Jonathan Mycock (Hampshire County Council) Summary Introduction and background The successful restoration of rivers and wetlands frequently depends on individuals and organisations working together in partnership. Partners may come together to carry out joint projects, or work together on consultative panels and stakeholder groups. Within large organisations e.g. Government agencies, individuals from different parts of the organisation may come together to develop and take forward particular activities or services in support of a common purpose and mutual benefits. Effective partnerships share knowledge, expertise, resources and risk to the benefit of the community, service users, funding bodies and participating partners. Partnerships have particular features and the application of appropriate tools and techniques can be important in enabling them to be managed effectively. This workshop will explore partnerships and look at some of these methods, drawing on the experience and knowledge of the workshop leader and participants. Objectives

• To improve participants’ awareness of the benefits of partnership working • To share best practice in managing partnerships, including tools and

techniques Content

• Explore some of the different types of partnership • Identify the benefits (and pitfalls) of partnership working • Define the stages of partnership development

Developing ideas; identifying needs Finding partners Agreeing ground rules; frameworks Partnership life cycle Life cycle as a project

• Look at some useful tools / techniques which might be used in each stage

Managing Partnership Projects

Jonathan Mycock LIFE 3 Project Manager

Hampshire County Council

Partnership Working

Definition of partnership:Individuals from various organisations or from

different parts of an organisation come together to develop and take forward particular activities or services in support of a common purpose and mutual benefits

Effective partnerships share knowledge, expertise, resources and risk to the benefit of the community, service users and participating partners

Benefits of partnership working

• Greater impact• More resources• New and better ways• Spread risks

Greater impact

Partnership can bring:

• Increased benefits for people, businesses and communities

• Increased reach to disadvantaged communities• Greater critical mass: ability to reach and deliver

beyond the capabilities of any one partner

More resources

Partnership can bring:

• Public funding where policy requires partnership bids and evidence of partners ability to deliver projects

• Strengthened negotiating power• The pooling of resources

New and better ways

Partnership can bring• Innovation: new, more effective ways of

doing things• New perspectives and challenging views

within the partnership• Improved intelligence about community

needs and opportunities

Spread risks

Partnership can bring:• Complementary strengths, resources,

perspectives• Greater flexibility within a team• A sharing of costs, common systems and

functions to promote and deliver services

Types of partnership

• Advisory group – to provide advice for sponsoring organisations

• Networking forum – to provide opportunities for mutual learning

• Strategic alliance – to achieve common objectives & added value

• Joint venture – to develop & deliver projects of strategic significance

Partnership ground rules

• Focus on mutual benefits• Deal promptly & +v’ly with issues to resolve• Support each other• Stick to agreed decisions• Learn continuously to improve effectiveness &

results• Manage partnership meetings

Partnerships origins & sources

• Policy & strategy requirements• Specific problems crossing org’ boundaries• Shared needs or common interests• Legislation or statutory requirements• Resource or capability limitations• Someone’s good idea

Finding potential partners

• Look for shared priorities & goals• Look for additional resources (people, cash,

equipment)• Consider Statutory obligations• Stakeholder analysis• PESTEL analysis• SWOT analysis

Partnership life cycle

• Forming• Frustration (Storming)• Functioning (Norming)• Flying (Performing)• Failing

Forming• Create opportunities for people to get to

know each other• Focus on common vision• Define tasks & outcomes• Establish groundrules

Frustration• Identify issues & problems openly• Revisit common ground, refine purpose• Implement practical actions or small wins• Clarify benefits & interests• Promote mutual appreciation of each parties

contribution• Fix the problem not the blame!

Functioning• Agree clear objectives, milestones & responsibilities,

success & performance measures• Draw up a partnership agreement• Establish principles & protocols for collaboration• Encourage shared leadership & accountability• Develop common methods & QS• Seek learning through cross-partner teams

Flying• Anticipate future challenges & build partner

capacity to respond• Take stock of the group’s performance• Keep working at communications• Ensure all partners are gaining expected benefit• Ask whether partnership is still serving its

purpose, or is its work done• Continue to celebrate success

Failing

• Go back to phase 1 and review options?• Wind up the partnership if it fails to

provide the expected benefits and results

Partnership life cycle as a project

1 Conception & definition2 Planning & scheduling3 Implementation, monitoring & control4 Completion & evaluation

Phase 1 - Conception & Definition

• Establish need, overall purpose & scope• Define key partnership objectives• Define quality, costs and time• List benefits sought & expected• Establish success criteria• Consult with stakeholders• Develop partnership project brief

Phase 2 - Planning

• Outline a strategy for meeting the objectives• Complete a breakdown of tasks & activities• Estimate time schedule• Estimate costs and aggregate into budget• Decide staffing structure and organisation• Design monitoring & control procedures• Prepare a communication strategy

Phase 3 - Implementation

• Monitor implementation of the plan• Adjust plan to changing circumstances• Give feedback to partnership members and

stakeholders• Negotiating for resources• Conflict resolution• Trouble shooting/problem solving

Phase 4 - Completion & evaluation

• Hand over partnership outcomes to the customer• Establish whether outcomes were achieved within quality,

cost & time• Write partnership report, if required• Determine how satisfied the customer & stakeholders are

& what the added value is• Review working of the team• Debrief the partnership team & disband• Tidy up loose ends & leave a clear audit trail

Securing Natura 2000 Objectives (LIFE 2)

Project Outline• Contract size £5.2m/€7.5m• EC (Life 2) grant 50%• Work on both SPA (bird) and cSAC (habitat) interests• 4,000 ha of restoration works out of 29,500 ha in cSAC• Management plan produced for whole 29,500 ha

• 400+ ha land purchased for nature conservation • Innovative elements• Complex partnership of 10 organisations

Organisations in the LIFE 2 Partnership

National Government • Forestry Commission• English Nature

Local Government• Hampshire County Council

Charitable Trusts and Voluntary Organisations• Two Wildlife Trusts• The National Trust• RSPB• Ninth Century Trust

Statutory Bodies• Verderers of the New Forest

Non-statutory public body• New Forest Committee

Partner Roles

Hampshire County Council• Project Beneficiary

– contract with EC• Contract Manager

– contact with Brussels– annual finance reports

• Project Banker– payments and claims

New Forest Committee• Partnership co-ordinator

– Liaison Group• Technical reports

– interim and final• Communications

– production of strategy and co-ordination

Contract Structure

ContractManagement Project

ManagementTeam

ProjectLiaisonGroup

HCC

Partner

PartnerPartner Partner

PartnerPartner PartnerPartnerPartner

EC

Work Group Heads

Partner Partner Partner Partner Partner PartnerPartner

Implementation Administered by

the

Forestry Commission

Survey and Monitoring Administered

by

English Nature

Communication Administered by

the

New Forest Committee

Breaking Down Barriers

• Sharing knowledge and

• experience through the work groups• Actively communicating with other partners• Addressing common issues together• Adopting common systems e.g. finance, GIS• Understanding partners’ different viewpoints• Constructively dealing with problems

Breaking Down Barriers 2

• Control Issues– land ownership– expertise– resources

• Compartmentalism– information– incompatible systems

• A change in ethos among the managers and land owners will ensure that conservation management takes priority

• Partners have gained confidence in innovative practices for habitat management

• The benefits of wider participation in determining appropriate management are now accepted

• The experiences, skills and knowledge gained by the partners will be of benefit in the longer term

• Substantial benefit to the partnership in having English Nature as an active partner

• Partnership and contract management need to be unified

Partnership Lessons

• Following on from the New Forest LIFE 2, the project will restore over 600 ha of valuable wetland habitats within the New Forest cSAC

• Approval to a £2.9 m (€4.6m) project received in July 2002

• Practical actions will include mire restoration and the restoration of riverine and bog woodlands

• Project duration 54 months, project end date 2006

The New Forest LIFE 3 Project

The New Forest LIFE 3 Project

Aims:

• restore the priority interest features of the New forest cSAC in accordance with the cSAC Management Plan

• establish their long term sustainability through the development of a mechanism which ensures the integrated management of the main water basins

• create of suitable conditions for the regeneration of a significant further area of priority habitat

Organisations in the New Forest LIFE 3 Partnership

• Hampshire County Council (the beneficiary)Government Agencies:• Forestry Commission• English Nature• Environment AgencyNGO’s:• The National Trust• RSPB

• European Commission £1,118,454 40%• Beneficiary £192,934 6.9%• Partners’ share £1,314,183 47%• Co-financiers’ contribution £170,564 6.1%

• Total project cost £2,796,135 100%

Project funding

Project Management Structure

Water Basin Management Forum

European Commission

Beneficiary –Hampshire

County CouncilEnvironment

Agency

EnglishNature

ForestryCommission

NationalTrust

RSPB

ConsulteePartner

ConsulteePartner

ConsulteePartner

ConsulteePartner

Contract Management Team

Project Management Team

Water Basin Management Forum

• “The establishment of a mechanism to facilitate the informed and integrated management of the New Forest cSAC at all levels”

• The Forum was formed to create a holistic and strategic approach to the management of water basins in the New Forest cSAC and guide partners work programmes, and to

• Develop and implement conservation objectives for the priority habitats of the cSAC, supported by the public and a cross section of local interests, land owners / occupiers and land managers

• Follows approach adopted for Forest Design Plans under LIFE 2• Two indoor meetings and 1 site visit held each year

www.newforestlife.org.uk

Jonathan MycockLIFE 3 Project Manager

Hampshire County Council

Different agendas or objectives

Funding Time Motivation Landowners Communications Staff Technical

● ● Changing advice from other partners causing delays● ● Committing the time as I have no control over workload priorities● ● Conflicting opinions● ● Continuity of contact points as staff change jobs● ● Cultural differences - legal frameworks differ a lot● ● Cultural differences between member states re. flood risk management stakeholder engagement● ● Declining farm incomes - access to stewardship funds

● ● Differing agendas of partners

● ●Due to discontinuous involvement you loose how the project is progressing or not! Then not easy to continue to be useful in the partnership!

● ● Funding● ● Funding drawdown criteria / admin arrangements

● ● Funding for core costs always very short term, difficult making long term plans● ● Funding for SFM● ● Getting landowners on board to deliver project aims● ● Having to provide field training to suit peoples schedules / weather● ● Lack of time to maintain good communication and develop future planning● ● Local organisations loosing interest / support for a project

● ● Motivation - its too easy to be led and not input to process● ● Non-agreement between different specialists over technical problems

● ● Objectives of partners not necessarily the same● ● Partners covering different geographical areas with different objectives / priorities● ● Reorganisation of key parts of two partners could hold up delivery of actions● ● Staff resources of other organisations● ● Too many partners with different agendas

● ● Too many 'Partners' with different agendas / objectives● ● Trees' - RSPB wanted them for habitats and salmon board didn’t

● ● Water abstraction licences

Figure 1: A summary of delegates' input regarding Issues encountered in Partnership Projects

Following on from Jonathan's Presentation delegates were asked to think of examples of partnership projects that they had been involved with, whether they were formal or informal arrangements. For each partnership theywere asked to note down issues that they encountered, these issues seemed to fall into three main categories: partners having different agendas or objectives, funding and time. Whether the partnerships were formal orinformal did not seem to affect the issues encountered. Please refer to the summary of results in Figure 1 for more details.

CommentIssueInformal Formal

Workshop 4 – conducted by Andrew Clarke: Habitat Project Failures A college who has undertaken many habitat projects told me, “If 50% of the projects succeed you have done well”. I would like to try to decrease the failure rate of habitat projects and one important factor is understanding why failures happen. We need examples of failures and to understand why the project failed. Many habitat problems are similar on different river catchments and similar remedial work is undertaken by catchment trusts, statutory bodies, owners, angling clubs and individuals. Where failures occur understanding the reasons and then disseminating the information can help stop the failure being repeated and help in the design of a successful projects. What are the reasons for failure? 1. Habitat problem identification. In the past work has been carried out on gut feeling or poor analysis of

the problem. Example: Salmonid ova survival in redds was thought to be poor on the R. Wyre. The solution was stocking with hatchery reared fish. These fish that were at times stocked into acid stressed areas of the catchment were they could not survive. Collection of data to analyse the problems needs to be robust and this data gives the baseline to prove the solution has worked.

2. Funding. Many projects fail because funding is not obtained for the project. Dove tailing projects to

different funding streams can be difficult. The length of time to release funds and spending deadline dates can mean projects being undertaken at less than optimum times. Example: The length of time from project design to obtaining funding on River Keer was 5 years. By this time some of the problems had changed and it was difficult to change the original accepted bid.

3. Project design. Failure in project design can occur in many ways.

a. The first is navigating the legal maze of different legalisation. In England there are European directives like Birds and Habitats Directives and Water Framework Directive. Parts of these directives are incorporated into Acts of Parliament and other legislation has been enacted. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Crow Act 2000 are examples. Siting of projects in designated sites can have major implications on how the project is implemented. The next tier is getting the correct consents and licences from the different statutory bodies. Land drainage consents and abstraction licences are sometimes needed. Then there is government guidance to follow which exceeds statutory requirements and effects of habitat projects may have adverse effects on other species.

b. Design details of the project have to be site specific and what works at one site may not work at another.

4. Project implementation. Incorrect timing wrong materials and poor workmanship can all cause failure. 5. Monitoring and dissemination. If you can’t prove the projects worked it can’t be used to model future

projects and used to gain further funding. If no body else knows about it they can’t use it. Outcomes The major points to come from the workshop were:

- The need for an improved database logging projects and reasons why projects fail to be included as well as success.

- Funding in England does not allow a maintenance budget for projects to be set up. - Many projects repeat the same mistakes. Projects from Norway, Scotland, Australia, Ireland and

England all had the same design fault causing erosion and structure failures.

River: Hoffselva County: Oslo Municipality: Oslo Country: Norway Background information: This is a small sea-trout stream in the city of Oslo. Most of the watershed (>70%) is developed and therefore covered by an impermeable layer, meaning that the hydrology of this stream is altered with more flash-floods and less flow during dry periods. Mean stream width is 5 meters, and the watershed is approx. 10 km2. Project goals: This stone weir is part of an old “rehabilitation scheme”, incorporating 4 weirs, that was carried out in order to raise the water level and create pools. The driver of this project was to improve the aesthetics of the river, which has a footpath built along the bank. Problems: The stone weirs are too high and not designed for this location. They were built of stone slabs in a size that was readily available. The bases of the weirs were not secured with any erosion control measures, and we now have a situation of erosion which is accelerating at the weirs (there 3 others further upstream are in almost the same condition). The weirs are also too high and therefore create pools with very low velocity. Remediation actions to be taken:

- rebuild the weirs to a lower height and install a notch in the middle in order to direct the low flow and increase the velocity in the pool created upstream

- stabilise the slopes with geotextile, and install rock rip-rap at the base of the slope. This must be done at least 5 meters up and downstream of the weirs. The height of the rip-rap should not be more than 75 cm higher than the flow shown in this picture

River: Tributary to lake Semsvann County: Akershus Municipality: Asker Country: Norway Background information: A small tributary used by trout for spawning and rearing. There are few pools in this stream (to much sediment input from upstream), and the spawning gravel has been covered with silt. The sediment input is now reduced. There is also very little large woody debris (LWD) that could contribute to make small weirs and increase scour to maintain the pools. Project goals: Improve the physical environment and create more pools and Problems: The fishing club that has made the weirs used cut timber instead of using locally harvested timber. They did not secure the upstream part of the weir with geotextile, and the water now flows beneath the structure instead of over it. It is also too high for this small stream. My suggestions for remediation:

- rebuild the weir with local timber, using logs with a mean diameter of 30 cm. One log height is enough in this small stream.

- secure the upstream side with geotextile - place LWD on the banks of the stream as cover for fish and to act as cannel

constrictors for locally creating small scour pools

River: Gjersjøelva County: Akershus Municipality: Oppegård Country: Norway Background information: A medium sized sea-trout river in the Oslofjord. Mean width is 7m. The lake form which the river flows is used as a reservoir for the local water-supply and the flow in this river is severely altered with very little baseflow. Project goals: 4 gravel-stone weirs have been built in the middle section of this river to raise the summer water level and create a park-like water feature. There is a walking path on the left side of the river and this area was supposed to be turned into a park. The weirs were also supposed to create pools for sea-trout. Problems: The weirs created small lakes upstream and this has favoured pike which is also found in this watershed. The water velocity is too low for sea-trout and pike are now thriving in this part of the river where they were seldom found before the weirs were built. My suggestions for remediation:

- tear down the weirs and build riffles instead. This will reduce the habitat for pike, and increase juvenile habitat for sea trout and also create more spawning grounds.

Project title: River Kennet SSSI Restoration Project description: identify, design and implement habitat restoration within the SSSI. Initial phase included developing a costed restoration programme for approximately 15km of river (to return the river to favourable condition as defined by English Nature). The second phase involved engineering and environmental design, and construction of restoration works (predominantly channel narrowing, bed raising and re-introduction of river gravels) along approximately 1km of the main river, which was significantly over-wide, over-deep and containing excessive silts (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Project issues and discussion: The project was design and implemented in a very short timescale (approximately 10 weeks for appraisal and design, and 10 weeks for construction) with construction limited to a very narrow window of opportunity – during the salmonid close season and before high winter flows. This had implications for scheme design, whereby compromises had to be made between the ‘ideal’ and the ‘achievable’. A potential perception of a failure of the scheme was the requirement to include an artificial geotextile (see Figure 3) within the scheme. However, this was necessary to allow a natural flint gravel bed to be ‘floated’ over significant depth of silt (over 2m deep in places with no discernable firm ground underneath) and was not seen in the finished scheme (see Figures 2 and 4). The cost of replacing all silts with gravel was prohibitive, and alternative materials (i.e. clean rubble) were not permissible for licensing reasons (see below).

Figure 1: ‘Start’ Figure 2: ‘Silts’

Figure 3: ‘Geotextile’ Figure 4: ‘Floating gravel’

Waste licensing was a key constraint. Given the tight delivery deadlines associated with the project, it was essential that the scheme did not fall under the remit of the Waste Regulations, thereby requiring a waste licence/waste exemption licence which could not be obtained in the timeframe available. In practice this meant that the scheme had to be designed and built with no removal of silt (not even temporary storage on the banks) and without importing any material other than clean dug gravels. This issue, inextricably linked to the programme, probably placed the greatest constraint on scheme design/implementation. Another key constraints included meeting local riparian landowner aspirations that included having to maintain water levels in adjacent ornamental ponds (see Figure 5). This resulted in significant lengths of the river channel where water levels could not be dropped through removal of artificial impoundments (hence need to raise river bed) and through use of new gravel weirs upstream of where impoundments removed (see Figure 6).

Lessons learnt: The key lesson is that to deliver an ‘ideal’ scheme requires sufficient lead in times for project design and planning – reducing programme will inevitably lead to design compromises. A secondary lesson that this project raises is the question of ‘what is a habitat project failure?’ – through informal discussions it appeared some people, based on limited knowledge, considered this scheme to be a failure due to the fact that the scheme design included an artificial product, namely the geotextile. However, from my perspective the scheme was a good example of where environment and engineering combine to provide a solution, which meets the environmental targets, is workable given the site and project constraints, cost-effective and was delivered to programme (see Figure 7).

Figure 5: ‘Duck pond’ Figure 6: ‘Weir’

Figure 7: ‘Finish + 1 year’

HABITAT PROJECT FAILURE AN ITALIAN CASE: Santa Marinella, near Rome, where there’s the chance to realize a habitat project, though with risk of failure… Present situation: The Regional Council has made the Hydrogeological Arrangement Plan (PAI), highlighting the flood risk areas. Santa Marinella town, along the coast, is crossed by several ditches that have the opportunity of being ecological corridors but instead are more likely to be cemented and become dumps. One of these, maybe the most “intact” one, is Castelsecco ditch.

Fig.1 – the Hydrogeological Asset Plan, with flood risk areas

Fig.2 – Castelsecco ditch looking u/s, just before its mouth (that is behind the photographer)

Castelsecco ditch

Fig.3 – Castelsecco ditch, an upstream stretch

Proposed project: Figure 3 shows clearly how the Castelsecco ditch can be a natural stream, enabling the developing of natural corridors and habitat. Though it needs to be restored, especially downstream, where it crosses the town, but “upstream” and “downstream” are connected… (obviously!). In the end, maintaining its natural conditions (i.e.: by avoiding cementification) would give the stream back to the environment and the population. Problems: Making possible this project depends on the local authorities, who have the “bureaucratical competence” of approving any “operation” on the territory and the environment (combining flood risk protection and ecological improvements on the environment). Moreover, local people want ever more and more space to build new houses, invading even stream beds… Solutions: Technical discussion with the different local authorities; events to involve the population; etc.… For more information contact: Alessandro Cappelli alessandro.cappelli@gmail.com

Inappropriate use of materials in a fisheries project in North West England – implications on bank stability

These photos aim to illustrate a project with objectives from a very limited fishery viewpoint. Its therefore not a typical habitat improvement that went wrong but nonetheless represents quite a common theme up in the North West of ‘lets try and enhance the fishing aspects of the reach through modification’ without reference to the overall reach habitat. By not adequately considering the geomorphological context of the river, and its stream power during flood flows, the fisheries improvement works have resulted in bank erosion.

This photo illustrates groynes that were constructed on the left bank to create scour pools for fish. Unsurprisingly they diverted flow onto the opposite bank with the result that the right bank required blockstone to prevent further erosion.

This photo illustrates the ineffectiveness of blockstone on an alluvial bank without vegetation growth. The blockstone simply diverts flow into the soft alluvial bank that then erodes.

The point here is that tinkering using hard engineering to create fish pools in a high-energy, gravel-bed river may result in bank erosion that requires protection and damage the natural functioning of the habitat.