THE RIVER RESTORATION CENTRE

Information and Advice:

The role of RRC

• Independent, not-for-profit, technical advisory organisation

• Not a consultancy, non-competitive support role

• RRC aims to support implementation of river restoration as an integral part of best-practice river management in UK

• Dedicated to making river management more effective through the collection and dissemination of knowledge on river restoration, informing and influencing policy and practice. – Information & advice

– Om-site project/case-specific support

– Training, learning and guidance

The River Restoration Centre

Support in Scotland Both SEPA and SNH have been core funders of RRC for 17 years.

SEPA – Annual corporate subscription. Provides funding so staff can make use of RRC [WEF team - TBA]

SNH – 2nd year of a 4 year grant. For training & support of SNH staff & project partners [Angus Tree]

All SEPA & SNH staff are RRC Members

• Enquiries and support via phone, email and post...

• Site visits and technical project scoping advice, reviews, etc

• Conferences, workshops, training, support..

• Newsletters, bulletins and website resources available

RRC Activities • Training and Guidance

– Annual Conference, Workshops, Training, Newsletters…

• Information – RRC Inventory, Website, Demonstration sites, Manual

of River Restoration Techniques, RiverWIKI, ECRR

• Advice on projects – One day scoping visits & outline suggestions; – Contacts & partnerships; – Technical design ideas; – Assessment of success.

• Advice on policy

RRC Annual Conference ‘06, R. Tummel

EU project seminar ‘12

Sheffield – 8/9 May 2014

Restoration Advice • Scoping visit to outline

potential and possibilities

[Kickstart the process, ideas!]

• Appraisal of options

[Brief. What, how and benefits]

• Providing the expert impartial input

[Ind. guidance and support]

• Technical involvement in design, construct, assessment

[Advise consultants/contractors to achieve the desired result]

Logie Burn, Dinnet

Inchewan Burn, Birnam

Modifications to Rivers and their Impacts

Martin Janes

River Restoration Centre

Old vs New

• Historic/past modification: a huge legacy – Learn lessons

– Recovery (leave alone)

– Restoration (assistance)

• New modifications. Legislation/regulation/better knowledge to help avoid poor practice – No loss of morphology and habitat

– Working with natural processes

– Mitigation for unavoidable loss

Past Modifications

Learn lessons from mistakes

and past practice

Types of management • Agricultural management – post war

– Increase productivity, widespread national policy » Dredging, drainage, straightening, overstocking, siltation….

Types of management

• Forestry management – Little thought of impacts to watercourses

» Ditching, drainage, sediment inputs, shading ….

Types of management

• Fishing management – ‘improvement’ driven, impacts slow to show..

» Flow obstructions, tree cover loss, single focus on fish(ing)

Types of management

• Urban development – Need for housing, industry, roads…

– Need for more space & flood protection! » Loss of floodplain storage & wildlife habitats….

» Culverting, walls and ‘debris’ removal....

Impact on gradient & transport

• Steepen gradients –> increased energy • Cut off bends and reduced river length.

– Loss of flow diversity (habitats/species)

– Bank erosion, bed erosion = protection (£££)

• Flatten gradients –> reduced flow velocity • Weirs, impoundments, etc…

– more deposition & maintenance (££)

Glen Beasdale, shortened!

River Dee, Braemar

R. Almond. Basket case!

Langton Burn – Tyred and tested!

• Old ways are not always

the best.

Changes in practice need

to be considered.

Can be hard to get people to understand why it might no longer be OK.

Knock on impacts can be

worse than the problem.

Provide alternatives based on current good practice.

A sensitive approach?

Ongoing maintenance costs - Esk What

blockstone?

Impact on gradient & sediment

• Steepen gradients –> increased energy • Cut off bends and reduced river length.

– Loss of flow diversity (loss of habitat/species)

– Bank erosion, bed erosion = protection (£££)

• Flatten gradients –> reduced flow velocity • Weirs, impoundments, etc…

– more deposition & maintenance (££)

Weirs and Impoundments • Sediment blockage, fish passage, repair costs...

Small scale impoundment

N. Esk, Polton 2m weir built for energy

2m of cobble build up

Retaining wall & infill

Housing developed on the site – above floods

Weir falling apart, no owner, expensive….

Riverine processes vs management

• Humans: sudden impact, low attention span!

• Rivers: Gradual, constant changes over time

– Small scale & incremental

as a result of:

• Small scale and widespread modification to ‘distant’ practices (e.g. change in riparian vegetation cover);

• Sudden intervention (known) with unknown long term ‘added extras’ (weir built with infilling behind).

= Geomorphology, hydrology -> ecology

Impact on processes, form & habitats

Realignment – cut off diverse habitat & ecology

Canalisation – wide, deep, silt filled, collapsing

Culverting – no habitat, no light, no access!

Clearance – poor veg’n structure, no input, debris!

Agricultural ‘Improvements’

• River Marteg, Mid Wales

– River realignment to increase grazing area

Unforeseen impacts

• Resultant instability

• Deposition & loss of grazing

Downstream implications

Flow diversion & Pool preservation

• Works following a spate, protects the access track and hut.

• Sediment deposition!

Ythan - Land drainage ‘canal’

Culverts

• H&S and flood risk (N. England 10 yr EA programme of deculverting and restoration)

• 40,000 culverts

Culvert impacts - Flood Risk

Tree clearance & management

• No root structure (bank instability)

• Limited wood input (invertebrate food/carbon)

• Loss of habitat (cover) & flow variation (scour holes)

New Modifications

Avoiding or mitigating the impact of modifications

& working with natural processes

New modifications Success depends on understanding - poor planning, design or implementation..

Two key areas – • Erosion control

– Reaction vs risk based, appropriate, long term, low maintenance

• Development – Often the watercourse is a small element of the overall work (an

obstacle or a conduit!)

• Flood management – Working with natural processes and natural flood management - still new

CAR licensing to reduce ‘new’ problems…. Need examples, case studies, experience, capacity – e.g. visits

Bank Erosion

Burn of Fochabers

• Unstable watercourse

• Reaction to flood events

• Campsite at risk

• Appropriate vs reactionary

– Cost vs benefit, plus maintenance

– Impact on the morphology & ecology

Urban development

North Calder Water

• Watercourse seen as an inconvenient obstacle,

• Pre CAR,

• Lack of planning and vision for the watercourse,

• Inherited issues from mill demolition,

• Stream bed mostly brick and concrete,

• Safety issues with exposed re bar, steep slopes, erosion, etc…

Flood prevention

Mains Burn

• Flood wall and increased capacity

• Opening up a culvert for biodiversity benefits

A simple solution to add value to a large FPS

Modified rivers

• Working against the natural system

• Loss of habitat and habitat quality

• Less able to be self sustaining/self regulating

• Require more maintenance

• Less resilient to change

Understand and work with nat. processes, or HMWB – mimic natural form to aid processes…