restore

River Restoration
Martin Janes
‘Environmental Management of Rivers and Wetlands’
• Complex ‘active’ landscape scale systems with multiple economic & social benefits.
• Management needed due to human pressure:
1. Understand the system (is it broken?)
2. Aid recovery (minimal intervention) 3. Reduce detrimental impacts (mitigation & change)
4. Restore the lost/scarce – process:habitat:ecology
River systems
• Process driven dynamic system
– Hydrology input & transport (flow)
– Sediment input & transport (erosion & deposition)
• Resulting physical & ecological habitat features
– Valleys, floodplains, wetlands, & channels
– Support wildlife flora & fauna (bugs, fish, humans)
• Resilient to change and disturbance (natural)
– BUT Modification, over use, taming!, = poor understanding of components and complexity
UK River ‘Taming’
•
Modified over many centuries. – Domesday Book 1086 •
More rapid over the last 100 yrs (industrialization & machinery)
Due to:
– land clearance/deforestation
– milling
– navigation
– land drainage
– flood protection
– abstraction
– urbanisation, – taming by engineers…
•
1998 report indicated 80% of UK rivers have had part of their channel modified.
Resulted in:
• extensive straightening ‐
– damaged wildlife habitats
– reduced value of fisheries
– reduced aesthetic appeal
• loss of floodplain wetlands ‐
– reduced ability of the floodplain to provide economically viable functions.
EU ‐ River management
East Europe: Water pollution & Floods
South Europe: Water Quan & Floods
North Europe: Dams, hydro & e‐flows
West Europe: Flood risk & Habitat frag.
• Flood ‘Protection’ and ‘Defence’
Channelisation, walls, culverts, pipes – local scale (problem or reach)
• Flood ‘Risk Management’
Storage, capacity, and how this affects the river (catchment scale)
• Integration ‐ River Basin Management Land (soil) management, sustainable drainage systems, functioning floodplains, integrated planning policies, ecosystem services. Historic management
Working with Natural Processes
Habitat Enhancement
& River Restoration
River restoration
• Restore river catchment processes
• Return physical features & habitat niches
• Reconnect isolated habitats
• Within the constraints
– complexity, land, money, built heritage, perception, ownership , water quality and quantity....
Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Biodiversity
Access to wildlife and nature
Flood risk management
Climate change resilience
Sustainable planning and redevelopment
Reduced maintenance cost
Safety
Drivers for change
• European Directives
–
–
–
–
Urban Wastewater treatment Directive (1991)
Habitats and Species Directive (1992) Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000)
Floods Directive (2007)
• National Poilcy
–
–
–
–
–
Espace de Liberté (France)
Room for the River (Netherlands)
Making Space for Water (Eng & Wales)
Natural Flood Management (Scotland)
Env. River Enhancement Prog. (Ireland)
• Other global and regional drivers
– Climate change (resilience), economy (fishing),..
WF Directive
 Targeted at Aquatic
Ecosystem River Quality;
 Prevents Further
‘deterioration’;
 Enhance Aquatic
Ecosystem Quality
through a program of
measures (PoM);
 Catchment scale river
basin planning (RBMP’s);
 Monitoring of compliance;
 Penalties for failure;
 Cyclical Implementation by 2015, 2021, 2027on 6
year ‘cycles’.
Restoration of degraded habitats
• Good Ecological Status (GES)
For all watercourses not impacted severely, or serving an overiding economic/public service
• Good (Maximum) Ecological Potential (GEP/MEP))
For all watercourses designated ‘Heavily Modified’, or ‘Artificial’
Best compromise (ecol. vs. needs of society) Monitoring and assessment
Multiple objective River Restoration Schemes
R. Skerne
Darlington
In
1994
Urban
UK River Restoration
Project. £1M
demonstration.
River Skjern, Denmark
Late 60’s Denmark’s largest land drainage scheme,
4000ha wetlands lost. Deepened, straightened,
embanked and pump-drained
……………………………………..……………………2004 cost £22M.
A sustainable solution. 1997, an
environmental ‘U’-turn. Act of
Parliament to restore the
meandering river and 2200ha of
wetands
2004 cost of £25M.
Before: Secondary drainage channel
Total earth works: 3,000,000 m3
R. Skjern ready to bend again
Flood Risk Management
Making
“Room for the River”
in The Netherlands
Urban
bottleneck
City of
Arnhem
Satellite image 1995
Urban Development
Arnhem 1830-2000
1830
2000
Dike relocation of Bakenhof (nearArnhem)
The Bakenhof area:
Natural ‘playground’ floodplain
River Quaggy, Chinbrook Meadows
Quaggy ‐ a river released
400m concrete removed
Quaggy ‐ for flood storage
Historic water meadows restored
Quaggy – for education
Quaggy ‐ for enjoyment
Residents/users:
Project improved the park 89%
Less anti social behaviour 56%
Bayerisches
Landesamt
für Wasserwirtschaft
Restoration of the Isar River in Munich --- flood control, ecology and
recreation
Urban Re‐development
River Colne, Staines, London
River Marden
Designed to physical forms defined by river processes
Include native habitat types to colonise
Accessible and visible to users and public
• Flood risk…. & Landscape, Habitat, Amenity, Public pride.
Simulate form & process in a constrained location
Cheong Gye Cheon Restoration Project, Seoul
5.8km, 3 years to completion in 2005. [US$ 280Mil]
Multiple benefits
River Brent, North London
March 2004
May 2005
Concrete
2002
August 1998
Design informed by geomorphology
to allow for a ‘semi-natural’ river form
with active fluvial process in a
constrained urban flood storage and
amenity parkland environment
July
July2003
2009
June 2006
March
2003
Social impact
Urban space,
Accessibility,
Quality of life,
Ownership, Social justice.
Fisheries and Biodiversity
Habitat & ecology
• catchment scale
– Ecosystem health, repopulation
of restored watercourse
• Reach scale
– Pools & riffles and the life cycle of fish
• Meso scale
– Individual habitat niches
Biodiversity is likely to be greatest in areas of high morphological diversity
Witham, Lincolnshire
•
•
•
•
Defunct weir
Fisheries problem
Siltation
Disrupting natural flow regime
• Return free passage
• Remove eyesore
• Restore natural functions
Gravel ‘riffle’
New Forest Mires
Some past realignment, but old channels still existing in the woodlands.
Restore the natural function of these small systems.
Benefits for biodiversity.
Mire restoration has been very successful, reducing runoff by infilling the drainage channels. Gravel and clay fill material raising the
bed to previous levels [2006]
Highland Water. Structure ruined by
poor management
[2002]
London Rivers Action Plan
Launched Jan 2009 by the Mayor of London’s Office.
To help step up the rate of river restoration throughout the City Target is to restore 15km of river by 2015 Highlighting opportunities and providing practical guidance to local authorities, developers, Non Government Organisations and community groups
www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php SAC River Restoration Plans
• England based Protected Areas (Habs Dir)
– 47 ‘SSSI rivers’ to favourable condition ‐ 2010.
– Protected areas (Habs Dir and WFD) where ‘restoration measures’ have been identified ‐
2015
– 50 year plan for physical restoration
• Remove structures, embankments, interruptions to hydromorphic and ecological processes
• Based on walk over survey of morphology & ecology
• Long term commitment & for ££ implementation
Current Initiatives
• Push towards ‘Natural Flood Management’ –
Scotland, N. Ireland and England & Wales
– POST seminar on Tuesday – NFM in England
• Based on ‘working with natural processes’ from the Pitt Review of 2007 flooding – report published Tuesday.
• Judicial Review treat in late 2010 – RBMP’s
– Defra announce £112M to bring waterbodies to GES (EA £9M pa, NE £6Mpa, CRF £8Mpa – Jan ‘12.
• Defra ‘catchment approach’ to water quality
– 25 pilot ‘local engagement’ projects ‐ Dec ‘11
Conclusions
• River restoration considers the whole river ‘system’;
• Multiple, complex interlinkages of biotic and abiotic factors;
• Restoration for WHAT? – define targeted measurable objectives for clarity and assessing outcomes;
• Planning at the catchment scale is essential to maximise the impact of any site or reach scale works;
• River managers working with, not against, the natural system (aiding recovery and WwNP & Room for the River);
• Restoring the ability of a river to function naturally (process)
has EU policy backing (Habs, WFD and Floods Dir’s);
• Large scale demonstration projects can help develop scientific and professional expertise, and give confidence to policy makers and the public.
RESTORE: Communicating best practice in river restoration
€1.8m, 50% EU LIFE+
6 Partners, 2010 ‐ 2013
4 Regions, 21 Countries
RESTORE common themes
Costs 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).
Output ‐ Review of EU Policy Drivers
A demand for river restoration tools and methods...
• Legislative Drivers:
– Habitats, Floods, Water Framework directives
– UN BioD Plan, Rural Development Prog., CC Adaptation & Land Use Planning policies.
• Supporting Legislation
– CAP, Nitrates & Groundwater directives
But deterioration of habitats despite these drivers. => Difficulties in overcoming obstacles to implementation for river restoration
Barriers and Constraints