CROCUS Seminar 4 River Restoration and public health (ii) Methodologies and Tools This seminar explores: • How do we design river restoration projects in contaminated settings? How do we integrate the community, landscape, and health and safety? • What tools do the practitioners have available for the assessment of urban rivers in terms of processes, public and health. How do we assess the contaminant loading? • How do we undertake Post Project Appraisal? How can it be adapted to incorporate public health risk? How can we integrate Post Project Appraisal into the Planning and Development Legal Frameworks? • What lessons can we learn from previous experiences? How do we discuss problems, issues, and failures? How do we balance the ideals of EU Legislation (e.g. Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Flooding Directive etc.) with the needs of the community, under a future scenario of changing climate regimes?
Transcript
CROCUS Seminar 4 River Restoration and public health (ii) Methodologies and Tools
This seminar explores:
• How do we design river restoration projects in contaminated settings? How do we integrate the community, landscape, and health and safety?
• What tools do the practitioners have available for the assessment of urban rivers in
terms of processes, public and health. How do we assess the contaminant loading?
• How do we undertake Post Project Appraisal? How can it be adapted to incorporate public health risk? How can we integrate Post Project Appraisal into the Planning and Development Legal Frameworks?
• What lessons can we learn from previous experiences? How do we discuss
problems, issues, and failures? How do we balance the ideals of EU Legislation (e.g. Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Flooding Directive etc.) with the needs of the community, under a future scenario of changing climate regimes?
October 12th & 13th CEH Wallingford Programme
Thursday 12th October 10.00 Registration & Coffee 10.15 Welcome & H & S notices,
Angela Boitsidis & Gareth Old 10.30 Faecal bacteria modelling Bettina Bockelmann-Evans, Cardiff University 11.00 Sediment Characterization and Restoration in Contaminated Urban Waterways.
Victor Magar, Environcorp, USA and colleagues
12.00 COFFEE 12.15 Methods and Tools for River Restoration: A practitioners view
Angela Boitsidis, Jacobs 12.45 Post Project Appraisal
Kevin Skinner, Jacobs/University of Nottingham
1.15 LUNCH 1.45 Engaging the public - lessons from flooding
Simon McCarthy, FHRC 2.15 Approach for balancing legislation and ideals with community needs in planning
river rehabilitation" Valerie Bain, and Roger Bettess, HR Wallingford
2.45 COFFEE 3.00 Case Study – The River Rother Dr Suzanne Hewitt, Jacobs 3.30 Discussion 4.30 Site Visit Presentation – Jubilee River
Angela Boitsidis & Richard Copas
5.00 Depart for Hotel 7.30 Evening meal
Friday 13th October SITE VISIT TO JUBILEE RIVER 9.00 Meet at Shillingford Bridge Hotel 9.15 Depart for Jubilee River 10.00 Meet with Jubilee River Warden & Richard Copas.
Walk along river with general discussion. 12.30 Pick up from end point
11
Numerical Modelling of Enteric Bacterial Contamination
by
Bettina Bockelmann-Evans, Lei Yang, Binliang Lin, Ingo Schnauder and Roger Falconer
Hydroenvironmental Research Centre,School of Engineering, Cardiff University, UK
22
Contents• General issues of enteric bacterial
contamination
• Conceptual model development
• Numerical model development
• Model application to Severn Estuary and Carmarthen Bay
• Concluding remarks
33
Bathing Water Compliance
44
General Challenges • Many coastal waters still fail to comply with
EU Bathing Water Directive despite much investment in sewerage infrastructure
• Bacterial interactions with sediments can contribute significantly to coliform levels in coastal and estuarine water columns
• CSOs and diffuse source pollution often a key unknown
• Enteric bacteria often crudely predicted in models due to exclusion of key inputs
55
CARDIFF BAY STUDY
66
CARDIFF BAY STUDY
77
CARDIFF BAY HISTORY• Growth - investment and expansion 1850s to 1900s
• Maturity - port achieving full potential 1910 to 1920
• Obsolescence - loss of trade to other ports after 20s
• Dereliction - abandonment and decline 1930s to 80s
• Regeneration - waterfront development 1990s to-date− Tidal exclusion barrage of length 1.4 km− New 13 km waterfront for capital of Wales− Taff and Ely rivers impounded to create lake
88
WATER QUALITY ISSUES• Long retention times and stagnation in Bay after construction of
barrage
• Sewers discharge directly into rivers - and then to Bay - under emergency conditions
• High rainfall on land picks up animal waste and carries it to rivers -and then to Bay
• Low winds and higher temperatures in summer months leads to growth of toxic algae in Bay
• Water sports in the Bay under consideration
99
PROJECT STRATEGY
Integrated Integrated modellingmodelling approach approach -- predicting predicting microbiological water quality indicatorsmicrobiological water quality indicators
Coastal Modelling River Modelling Sewer Modelling
1010
ENTERIC BACTERIA FLUXES• Bacteria in estuarine waters primarily exist in
two forms:Free-living bacteria moving with currents Adsorbed bacteria attached to surface of sediment particles - move with sediments
• Adsorbed bacteria moving with sediments may be deposited on bed and subsequently re-suspended or desorbed to water column
• Free-living and adsorbed bacteria undergo decay processes - which are highly dynamic
1111
1. Total die-off
2. Settlement
3. Decay in darkness
4. Irradiance with decay also related to SPM
5. pH die-off
6. Temperature die-off
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
ktot = ks + (kd + f(Io,SPM))f(pH) f(T)
• Bacterial decay known to depend upon many parameters such as:-
BACTERIAL DECAY• Hydroenvironmental models tend to use
constant values for decay rate or T90:
k = constant or k = φ(Temp)
1212
• Suspended solids reduce effect of sunlight on decay (increase T90 value)
Effect of suspended solids on die-off (Z=1m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 500 1000
Irradiance at waters surface, Io (W/m2)
Dept
h av
erag
ed T
90 (h
ours
)
[SS]=0.5 mg/l
[SS]=1 mg/l
[SS]=2 mg/l
[SS]=4 mg/l
[SS]=8 mg/l
[SS]=16 mg/l
[SS]=32 mg/l
[SS]=64 mg/l
BACTERIAL DECAY
1313
• Darkness to sunlight leads to increase in decay rate (reduction in T90 value)
Varying day/night T90 values - 4 am releaseMODEL SIMULATION
1818
• Develop empirical formulations linking faecal coliform indicator levels with hydrodynamic and bio-chemical processes in river basins
• Acquire improved model representation for bacterial indicators and suspended sediment transport processes in estuarine waters
• Refine hydroenvironmental modelling tools to provide holistic approach to river basin management and legislative compliance
• Refine models using field data
AIMS OF CURRENT STUDIES
1919
Water Quality Control of Diffuse Source and CSO Pollution• Eutrophication (Nutrients, Algae)• Bathing Water Quality (Faecal Bacteria)Scenario Based Approaches• Dry conditions, storm events, seasonal,
tidal cycle• Influence of land-use practices, e.g.
reduction of improved pasture, introduction of fencing to restrict river access
NEED FOR:
2020
Bristol Channel and Carmarthen Bay, UK
2121
Rhossili BeachRhossili Beach
Tenby BeachTenby Beach
STUDY AREA
2222
• Concerns by UK Environment Agency about high bacteria levels along parts of estuary
• Wastewater treated to high level - including secondary treatment and UV disinfection
• Tidal range along estuary is substantial - 2nd highest spring tidal range world-wide > 15m
• High levels of suspended sediment activity
• Long term investigations being undertaken to study enteric bacterial fluxes in estuary
BACKGROUND
2323
Field Studies by CREH
2424
Enterococci Input Estimation • Riverine sources:
Flows from Environment Agency (EA) gauges Enterococci concentrations estimated using calibrated land cover-water quality modelsModels use proportion of land-cover types to predict enterococci organism concentrations
• WwTW final effluent sources:DWF and maximum flows from EA consents database and water companiesEnterococci concentrations from CREH catchment studies
2525
Riverine Budget• Flows for each
river separated into ‘base flow’ or ‘high flow’ and predicted water quality assigned accordingly
• River Severn by far largest source
2626
Riverine and WwTW Sources
RiversRivers
WwTWsWwTWs
2727
Input Estimation: Findings• Majority of enterococci delivered during high
flow conditions
• Relatively few sources contribute majority of enterococci load to estuary
• WwTWs dominate base flow delivery –providing background enterococci in estuary
• Riverine sources dominate for high (rainfall induced) flows - giving high coliform levels in turbid waters with low irradiation (i.e. cloudy)
2828
Relationship with Turbidity/SS• Empirical relationships developed in laboratory study
between turbidity, suspended solids and T90 values • Real-time T90 in numerical model - varying with time,
location, predicted SS level and radiation patterns
Ecological Impacts of Pollution –Chesapeake Bay, US
1970s, the Bay contained one of the planet's first identified marine dead zones where hypoxic waters were so depleted in oxygen they were unable to support life.
Large algae blooms, nourished by farm runoff, industrial waste, and nitrogen + phosphorus prevented sunlight from reaching the bottom of the Bay.
Depletion of oysters due to over harvesting and damaged habitat accelerated these problems.
UNEP Geo Year Book 2003, http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/089.htm
CROCUSCROCUS
Point Source elimination - Improved sewage treatment- Reduce phosphorous and nitrogen releases in sewage
via secondary and tertiary treatment - Reduce industrial releases
Non-Point Source Elimination- Reduced agricultural fertilizer use - Rehabilitation of wetlands - Capture and control of road runoff - Reduce atmospheric contaminant releases
No single factor has done more to improve the environment than
source control, followed by natural attenuation
CROCUSCROCUS
General Environmental Indicators(Are We Improving?)
SedimentQuality
WaterQuality
1970 Present
Fisheries
SourceControl
1990
Over the past nearly 50 years, the ecological health of
US watersheds show signs of improvement
Wetlands
UrbanGrowth Industrial
Expansion
CROCUSCROCUS
Presentation Outline
1. History of Surface Water Pollution
2. Legacy Contaminants
3. Using environmental forensics, characterization, and risk assessment to evaluate the ecological health of rivers and waterways
4. Remedy approaches
5. Concluding Remarks
CROCUSCROCUS
Ongoing Water Pollutants of Concern Today
Some organic water pollutants- insecticides and herbicides, including organohalides- bacteria, often is from sewage or livestock operations - food processing waste, including pathogens - tree and brush debris from logging operations - VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds, industrial solvents) from improper
Some inorganic water pollutants- metals including acid mine drainage - acidity caused by industrial discharges (especially sulfur dioxide from
power plants) - chemical waste as industrial by products - fertilizers, in runoff from agriculture including nitrates and phosphates- silt in surface runoff from construction sites, logging, slash and burn
practices or land clearing sites
CROCUSCROCUS
Ongoing Water Pollutants of Concern – Legacy Contaminants
Precede 1970s and 1980s regulations
PCBs from manufacturing and use
Manufactured gas plants (MGP) - Coal tar releases - PAH contamination
Metals from production and industrial use
DDT and other banned pesticides
Dioxins/Furans
CROCUSCROCUS
Legacy contaminants are prevalent in historically industrialized areas, urban environments, ports & harbours
There are 3,200 Km of waterways in United Kingdom
Largest UK Ports and Harbours- Hound Point- Immingham- Milford Haven- Liverpool- London- Southampton- Sullom Voe- Teesport
CROCUSCROCUS
Impacts of Source Control: Sediment Trends in the US
van Metre et al., 1997, 1998, 2000
EPA-823-R-01-02 (2004) The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination
in Surface Waters of the United States
Lead trends since 1975
PAH trends since 1970
DDT trends since 1970
CROCUSCROCUS
Source Control of Legacy Contaminants Can Contribute to Restoration
source identify- Positive detection at “trace” levels
with corroborating QA/QC
Methods to account for weathering (or, aging) processes- Dechlorination of PCBs- Debromination of PBDEs- Perfluorinated compounds- Petroleum hydrocarbons
Field weathering of distribution of PAH compounds
2. Features of EF
CROCUSCROCUS
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
N0
N1
N2
N3
N4
Bph Acl
Ace
DbF F0 F1 F2 F3 D
0D
1D
2D
3D
4A
N P0 P1 P2 P3 P4 FL PY FP1
FP2
FP3
BaA C
0C
1C
2C
3C
4B
bF BkF
BaF
BeP
BaP
PER ID DA
BgP
PAH
mg/
kg o
il43 mg/kg
Naphthalenes
FluorenesPhenanthrenes/Anthracenes
Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes
Coal-tar sample: C0 >> C1 > C2 > C3 > C4
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
N0
N1
N2
N3
N4
Bph Acl
Ace
DbF F0 F1 F2 F3 D
0D
1D
2D
3D
4A
N P0 P1 P2 P3 P4 FL PY FP1
FP2
FP3
BaA C
0C
1C
2C
3C
4B
bF BkF
BaF
BeP
BaP
PER ID DA
BgP
PAH
mg/
kg o
il
Petroleum sample: C0 < C1 < C2 > C3 > C4
Naphthalenes
Fluorenes Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes
Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes
Pyrogenic (e.g., tars and coal byproducts)
C0 > C1 > C2 > C3 > C4
Petrogenic (e.g., petroleum products)
C0 < C1 < C2 > C3 > C4
PAH Fingerprinting(Petrogenic vs. Pyrogenic)
CROCUSCROCUS
Natural Background- Perylene - C2-phenanthrenes
Urban Runoff- 4- to 6-ring PAH- Dominant fluoranthene, pyrene, benzofluoranthene, and benzopyrene peaks- Fluorine to pyrene [FO/PY] ratio
Creosote- 2- and 4-ring PAHs- Dominant non-alkylated parent PAH
- Historical archive analysis - Hydrodynamic assessment- Analysis of natural and anthropogenic stressors
Environmental Sampling and Site Characterization - Magnitude and distribution of sediment contaminants
Advanced Trace Chemistry Analysis- Chemical fingerprinting and Multivariate statistics- Source allocation and chemical transformation
Fate & Transport Analysis and Modeling- Hydrodynamics, sediment particle tracking, air dispersion,
weathering, corrosionEcological and Human Health Impacts
- Risk analysis - Watershed Stressor Analysis
CROCUSCROCUS
Balancing Different Lines of Evidence
Source identification
Nature vs. anthropogenic
Extent of contamination
Estimating contributions
Distinguishing chemical vs. non-chemical stressors
Detecting ecological changes
Causality
Risk assessment and ecological exposure
CROCUSCROCUS
Assessing Ecological Health
Source: TetraTech (2005) Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watershedshttp://www.co.ho.md.us/DPW/DOCS/patapsco.pdf#search=%22fish%20trends%20in%20Patapsco%20River%22
CROCUSCROCUS
The U.S. EPA Stressor Identification Process
Repeat Scenario
Formulation
Eliminate Causes
Diagnose
Compare Strength of Evidence Reconsider
Effects
Collect More Data
ID Probable Cause
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
ZERO ONE
NO
>1 or unclear
Analyze Evidence for Strength of Evidence
Causes Remaining?
Causes Subject to Diagnosis?
Cause(s) Diagnosed?Effects
Real?
Sufficient Confidence?
Criteria for Sufficiency Report Results
Analyze Evidence for Elimination
Analyze Evidence for Diagnosis
List Candidate Causes
Define Biological Impairment
CROCUSCROCUS
EU DPSIR Process
CROCUSCROCUS
Recipe for Successful Environmental Assessment
Rigorous source characterization to understand long-term contamination from multiple sources
Understanding hydrodynamics
Empirical evidence from different chemistry methods that don’t smudge the “fingerprint”
Understanding background conditions
Differentiating between “essential” and “nice-to-know” information
Understanding degradation processes (soils and sediments)
Understanding bioaccumulation (biota)
Understanding biological and human health effects
CROCUSCROCUS
Presentation Outline
1. History of Surface Water Pollution
2. Legacy Contaminants
3. Using environmental forensics, characterization, and risk assessment to evaluate the ecological health of rivers and waterways
4. Remedy approaches
5. Concluding Remarks
CROCUSCROCUS
Untreated State Concentration
Dredging
Dredging + Backfill
Concentration
Clean Cap
Sediment Capping Concentration
Sediment Remedies
Natural Recovery Concentration
MNR
CROCUSCROCUS
Untreated State Concentration
Dredging
Dredging + Backfill
Concentration Natural Recovery Concentration
Clean Cap
Sediment Capping Concentration
greatest potential exposure
Make Sure Remedies Realistically Address Potential Exposures
MNR
CROCUSCROCUS
Risk-management- Select the remedy that provides the best combination of risk
reduction benefits to humans and environment
Implementability considerations - Debris removal - Shoreline and on-site staging - Expected throughput and construction duration
Remedy permanence - Long-term sediment and remedy stability / permanence - Long-term chemical / geochemical stability - Long-term recontamination potential
Cost benefit analysis
Remedy Evaluation Considerations
CROCUSCROCUS
No presumed remedy - “There should not be necessarily a presumption that removal of
contaminated sediments from a water body will be necessarily more effective or permanent than capping or MNR.”
- “Likewise, without sufficient evaluation there should not be a presumption that capping or MNR will be effective or permanent.”
Combine MNR with source control and other remedies- Large, complex sites “should consider a combination of sediment
approaches…to manage the risk.”
Remedy should focus on risk reduction- “…deeper contaminated sediment that is not currently bioavailable
or bioaccessible, and that analyses have shown to be stable to areasonable degree, do not necessarily contribute to site risks.”
2005 EPA Guidance
CROCUSCROCUS
In Situ Management Preferences
Emphasize MNR for low-risk sitesApply capping remedies to stable sites where focus is on risk reduction Use dredging sparingly!!! - Dredging is rarely cost effective- Dredging does not necessarily reduce risks - Post dredging capping/MNR often to do the real work - Dredging can damage the environment
Use dredging to control hot-spots and secondary source zones, not to reduce contaminant risks
CROCUSCROCUS
Sediment Cap ReviewThin-layer caps- Accelerate MNR- Surface sediment dilution - Create a new surface sediment habitat
Isolation caps - Thinker, armored caps - Isolate contaminated sediment from erosion - Create a barrier between contaminants and sediment
surface Reactive caps - Activated carbon to sequester contaminants - Reactive materials (e.g., apatite) to transform
3. Using environmental forensics, characterization, and risk assessment to evaluate the ecological health of rivers and waterways
4. Remedy approaches
5. Concluding Remarks
CROCUSCROCUS
Concluding Remarks
Sediment characterization requires strong science and an interdisciplinary approach
Sediment remedies should emphasize source control and Natural Recovery - History has repeatedly shown source control and
natural recovery to effectively manage environmental impacts
- Natural recovery contributes to sediment remediation regardless of the selected remedy
Sediment capping can complement natural processes and rapidly contributes to risk reduction
Tools and Methods for River Restoration: The Practitioners View
Angela Boitsidis
CROCUS Seminar 4 – Methods and Tools12 October 2006CEH Wallingford
Introduction
River Restoration is usually undertaken in response to a change.Currently undertaken on an ‘ad-hoc’ basis, wherever and whenever an opportunity arises.Tends to be based and considered at a site level.Increasingly requires innovative methods to integrate social, health, ecological and physical benefits.
The Legislative Context
Undertake work based around the UK & EU legislative framework Key legislation/Initiatives:Environmental Assessment (SEA & EIA) – European Directive 85/337/EEC, Town & Country Planning Act (1999)Making Space for Water (DEFRA 2000)Higher Level Stewardship (DEFRA 2005)Draft Flooding Directive (EU 2006)Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (EU 1992)Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. Water Framework Directive (EU 2005)
Water Framework Directive
Seeks to bring previous water legislation together under a single updated umbrellaIntegrates groundwater with surface water Focussed at catchment level but will act and influence at a site levelSeen as a panacea for river restoration, rehabilitation and management by manyHas three key ‘get out clauses’ for developers
Get out Clauses
All PRACTICABLE steps must be taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water environmentA scheme is of OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of protecting the water environment from deterioration of status are outweighed by the benefits of the scheme to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to sustainable developmentThe beneficial objectives served by the scheme cannot for reasons of TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OR DISPROPORTIONATE COST be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option
The Strategic Level
Strategic Environmental Assessment goes hand in hand with Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Authority Strategic Planning InitiativesAppropriate at a catchment levelDrive towards integrating restoration opportunities into the FRM Strategy especially in Urban catchments.As practitioners we try to get the planning authorities and agencies responsible to think in terms of planning restoration both spatially and temporally. Doesn’t legally have to include geomorphology, or assessment of river habitat – includes soils, geology, hydrology, water quality, ecology.
Fluvial Audit & Catchment Baseline
Catchment baseline surveys look at the morphological form and assess the river in terms of its sensitivity to disturbanceFluvial audit looks at the geomorphological processes in the catchment, sediment dynamics and transport through the system, types of modification etc., based on defined geomorphological reaches. In practise, these tend to be combined together. The fluvial audit is undertaken and adapted to look at particular concerns in the river (fine sedimentation of spawning gravels, sites for restoration, etc). It is a fairly rapid catchment assessment (approx 7-10km of river can be covered in one day depending on access, river type and season)
Catchment Baseline Surveys
The Ideal!!!
Located in Germany!!!Heavily Modified Water BodyOpen SewerHas a 20 year restoration programme working from upstream to downstream Cost – 4.4 bn EURO (funded by industry, government, and water companies)Integrates ecology, water quality, sediment quality, public health, water quantity, physical habitat, and society.
River Emscher Catchment
Site Level
Appropriate for EIA, Restoration scheme proposals and design, single issue problems such as localised erosion etc.Tends to be the level at which geomorphology is included but not always (e.g. EIA)A range of tools can be implemented at this level from walkover surveys by experts (look and see) to reconnaissance surveys.Accepted methodologies used are RHS, RCS, Stream Reconnaissance survey (Thorne 1998), Geo-RHS (in preparation)RRC manual for techniques for river restoration. USDA Stream Corridor Restoration Manual. Increasingly in urbanised catchments the theme is adaptation and innovation!
Specific Assessments for Specific Problems
Experts brought in to solve specific problems (local erosion, collapse of weir structures, docking areas in estuaries, bridge crossings, boat wash erosion near mooring points etc.)Undertake hydrodynamic modelling for a variety of projectsLong term monitoring of erosion, deposition, and other issues (useful for navigation channels where erosion processes are complex).Developing guidance for river assessment and restoration at a variety of levels.Directing engineers away from the traditional methods of bank protection - and recognising where hard engineering is required!
Problems & Issues
Time lag between academic progress and implementation on the ground.Having the time to convert academic knowledge into new techniques and methods (this is usually not funded by the projects and often not supported by the company as it is non-fee earning!!)Getting applied research, techniques and methods funded and published.Breaking the precautionary principle and risk averse stance. Assessment methods are not always appropriate for urban catchments. If we don’t monitor we don’t have a problem!!
Monitoring and Post-Project Appraisals-Key components in River Restoration
Dr Kevin SkinnerPrincipal Geomorphologist, Jacobs and Industrial Fellow,
School of Geography, University of Nottingham)
CROCUS Seminar 4 – Methods and Tools12/13th October 2006
CEH Wallingford
Contents
1) River Restoration Protocol2) Post-Implementation practice3) Monitoring4) Post-Project Appraisal5) Final parts of Post-Implementation practice 6) Water Framework Directive7) Conclusions
1) River Restoration protocol
Figure from Skinner, K.S. and Bruce-Burgess, L., 2005, Strategic and project level river restoration
protocols- key components for meeting the requirements of the
Water Framework Directive, Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and
Environmental Management, 19, 135-142.
2) Post-Implementation Practice
• There has been several studies that suggest a high rate of failure amongst current rehabilitation schemes (Frissell and Nawa, 1992; Beschta et al., 1994; Miles, 1998)
• Frissell and Nawa (1992) found that, in south-west Washington, 18.5% of schemes had failed completely, whilst a further 41.5% had some form of impairment or failure, following a flood with arecurrence interval in the range of 2-10 years
We thus still have a lot to learn about restoring rivers
Why should we undertake Monitoring and Post-Project Appraisals?
3) Monitoring
Aimsto provide data that can be used to assess the success of the project in meeting specific success criteria that should be defined in the design phase of the schemeto provide a means for identifying any problems/maintenance issues that have arisen since the implementation of the scheme
IssuesScale (spatial resolution)Time (frequency of monitoring) Risk and Uncertainty
Issues
Scale (spatial resolution)−At what distance between samples should you
monitor?Time (frequency of monitoring)−How often should you monitor?
Risk and Uncertainty− Increased level of risk/uncertainty might require
increased spatial and temporal frequency of monitoring
Geomorphological monitoring selection model
Scale R
esto
ratio
n T
echn
ique
New/NovelSmall Medium Large
0m 100m 500m
EstablishedA
B
C
Eg Fixed point photographyGeoRHS
Eg Fixed point photographyGeoRHSBed materialBank conditions
Eg Fixed point photographyGeoRHS
Eg Fixed pointphotographyTopographic surveyAerial photographyRepeat cross-sectionsLiDARFixed point photographyGeoRHSTopographic surveyLiDAR
(adapted from England, J., Skinner, K.S. and Carter, M., submitted, Monitoring, river restoration and theWater Framework Directive, Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management)
Repeat fixed point photography- River Idle Nottinghamshire (Skinner, 1999)
March, 1996January, 1996 October, 1996
July, 1997 January, 1998 May, 1998
Repeat cross-sections River Idle Nottinghamshire (Skinner, 1999)
DEFLECTOR
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
5M10M 0M 5M 10M 20M
Note : The 0m measurement was based at the midpoint of the tip of thedeflector and all other cross sections were based from this point
Cross-section number
1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflector 6ACross-section 4
January 1996 – May 1998
0m 5m 10m
Erosion Deposition
1m
0m
RBRBLBLB
Monitoring Strategy
Example
Types of Monitoring
(adapted from Skinner, K.S., Shields, F.D. Jnr, Harrison, S., in press, Measures of success: defining the outcomes, in Sear, D.A. and Darby S.E. (eds), River restoration:
Managing the uncertainty in restoring physical habitat, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester)
Eg Invertebrate and fish surveys
Eg Marginal vegetation surveysBiological
Eg Large woody debrisPhysical habitatEcological
Eg Lab analysis of discrete samples or electronic logging or in-situ measurements
Water QualityChemical
Eg Bank conditions eg height, slope or soils
Eg Bed material sampling
Eg Full topographic survey with total station
Eg Suspended sediment concentrations
Eg Repeat cross-sections
Eg Stream reconnaissanceGeomorphology
Eg Velocity patterns
Eg Stream stage or flow
Eg PrecipitationHydrologyPhysical
Variables and methodsSubcategoryCategory
4) Post-Project Appraisals
• Provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the project relative to initial design objectivesAssess the success of different sections of the project andthus providing documentation that could be used for futurerehabilitation designEnable the identification of areas that are in need of some form of maintenance Present a means for the dissemination of project resultsOffer an opportunity to learn from previous mistakes
Important benefits gained from undertaking PPAs
• Catchment baseline studies are rarely undertaken• Data and information on the project and its immediate environment,
at a reach scale, are often absentProjects do not define their aims and objectives explicitly as success criteria which are amenable to testing through a PPAMonitoring and Post-Project Appraisals are rarely undertaken as part of a coherent rehabilitation strategyRarely is money set-a-side for both post-project monitoring and
evaluation
Current problems with contemporary practice that reduce the effectiveness of Post-Project Appraisals
Post-Project Appraisal Procedure
Example PPA procedure(adapted from Skinner, K.S., Shields,
F.D. Jnr, Harrison, S., in press, Measures of success: defining the outcomes, in
Sear, D.A. and Darby S.E. (eds), River restoration: Managing the uncertainty in
restoring physical habitat, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester)
Desk Study
Reconnaissance Survey
Compliance Audit
Performance Audit
Evaluation
Post-Project Appraisal Procedure
Desk StudyAims to bring together all background information on the scheme including baseline data, schemes objectives, success criteria, monitoring data, design drawings and as-built plans.
Reconnaissance SurveyThis involves a site visit to document key morphological and biotic features and document differences between design plans/as-builts and the contemporary project reach.
Compliance AuditCompares any differences between the design plans and the installed scheme. In particular, features such as bed slope, substrate size, topographic variations, planform and bank height should be detailed.
Post-Project Appraisal Procedure
Performance AuditCompare morphological, ecological, hydrological or water quality changes that have occurred in the system following implementation. This should use monitoring data and baseline data to enable comparisons to be performed.
EvaluationEvaluate the success of the scheme in meeting objectives using information obtained in the desk study, reconnaissance survey and the two audits
5) Final parts of Post-Implementation practice
Maintenance:The results of the evaluation can be used to determine whether any maintenance is necessary for the scheme. If any is undertaken this should be recorded so that the scheme is fully documented.
Project Dissemination:It is important that the results of the project are disseminated(whether good or bad) as this is an important way for the science of rehabilitation to progress. This can be done through agencies such as the River Restoration Centre in the UK (http://www.therrc.co.uk/)
6) Water Framework Directive
Member states need to ‘protect, enhance, and restore all bodies of surface water......with the aim of achieving good surface water status at the latest 15 years (ie 2015) after the date of entry into force of this directive (Directive 2000/60/EC)’
Water Framework Directive requires the development of new monitoring and classification systems by December 2006
The requirements of the Directive are extensive and will cover all surface water and groundwater bodies
3 types of monitoring required:Surveillance – to validate the characterisation pressure and
impact assessments, detect long-term trends;Operational – to help classify those water bodies which are at
risk of failing to meet ‘good status’; andInvestigative – to ascertain the cause and effects of a failure to
meet ‘good status’ where it is not clear
6) Water Framework Directive
To achieve good status both good ecological and good chemical status needs to be achieved
Ecological status split into biological, hydromorphological and supporting physico-chemical factors
Requirement under the WFD that once good ecological status is achieved member states need to take ‘the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of status of all bodies of surface water” (Commission of European Community, 2000))
Monitoring is thus going to be a central requirement of the WFDRestoration is a good way forward to achieve good surface water
statusThe necessity for monitoring means that the often neglected phases
of monitoring and appraisal could become necessary not only on ascientific basis but also under compliance of the WFD
7) Conclusions
Monitoring and Post-Project Appraisals are key components of the restoration protocolMonitoring is a key way of determining whether a project is achieving benefits Post-Project appraisals are essential for evaluating the effectiveness of schemes in meeting their aimsWater Framework Directive potentially offers a significant driver for restoration schemesMonitoring and Appraisals are likely to essential for compliance as well as scientific benefit
Share power Hand picked ‘worthy’ stakeholders Invited to take part One way
2. Therapy 1. Manipulation
Present for cure Present for education
Methods for public participation
New deliberative approaches:a multi-voiced, interactive process of debate and consensus-building where information, knowledge, values and ideas are equally shared and all stakeholders are active partners in the creative processes.
Techniques includeCitizens Juries/CourtsCommunity Advisory CommitteesPlanning for RealVisioning
Improve communication and understanding among all parties
Encourage community ownership
Improve the final scheme delivered to residents
Public involvement approachesVehicle to
DifficultiesConsensus not an automatic outcomeValue of participation will need to be ‘sold’ to potential participantsInertia to involvementCan raise unrealistic expectationsRequires time, resources and skilled input.
‘SMURF and the public. Engagement and learning. Final project report.’River Tane, Petts and Gray. Workshop 1
HarmoniCOP handbook ‘Learning together to manage together– Improving participation in water management’
River restoration. Tunstall and Eden. River Brent. Workshop 2Tapsell. River Ravensbourn.
Floodscape report on participation (draft). Rivers Humber, Dart. Tapsell.
Building knowledge of engaging the publicIn water management
Clarity of purpose (avoid misunderstandings)Clarity of future influence on decisionsClarity of expectations (timing and options) Transparency (agendas and paper trail)Competency (relevant skills required of facilitator(s))Fairness (all able to express their views)Inclusiveness (include all stakeholders)Planning and early involvement Time (need to build long-term relationships)Flexibility (in approach)Comprehensiveness (should cover all stages of project)Evaluation of ‘success’ criteria
Engaging the public
Criteria for involvement
Methods for public consultation
Multiple approaches fit to purposepublic meetingsletters/leaflets newslettersmedia (national and local newspapers, TV and radio)exhibitionsquestionnaires with reply slipssocial surveys/focus groupsposters (e.g. in public places and meeting points)“surgeries” and drop in centresvisits to local schoolsInternet web pages with relevant authoritycommunity representatives
‘Traditional’ social survey in flood risk management
Halcrow commissioned survey at the options generation stage
• 206 questionnaire interviews conducted by MORI interviewers with at-risk residents in 12 defined localities.
• Approx. half the households in each locality, 20 min interview.• 31st October – 30th November 2005.
• Supplementary qualitative interviews
Part of further stages of public involvement.
Pre consultation Survey Approach
Lower Thames Strategy Study
22
17
14
1312
83
3738
33
2423
1
36
Sample localities – representative of the reach
Engagement with flood risk
5%
53%
34%
6%
Not at all
Not verymuch
A fairamount
A greatdeal
Total Sample (206)
Q. … how much, if at all, is your home at risk from flooding?
49% aware before they moved10% would not if knowing risk
Engagement with flood risk
Q: How worried, if at all, are you about the possibility of your home being flooded during the next 12 months?
22%
23%
23%
13%
14%
2%
2%
Not at all worried 0
1
2
3
4
5
Very worried 6
Total Sample (206)
16% of total sampleboth perceiverisk as great/fair andworried 4,5,6
Conveying concepts
Preference
32%
44%
11%TotalSample (206)
Description included:
• May not be suitable for their locality• Event specific• Three designs equally effective• Access problems while in use (~week)
Importance of the local environment
3%
1%
16%
40%
37%
Strongly disagree
Tend to disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Tend to agree
Strongly agree
Total Sample (206)
Principle of usingChange to the look
of the river bank
10%-17%
27%-37%
21%
11%-13%
14%-16%
Q. How much do you agree or disagree with the principle of using temporaryflood defences in this area?
For public involvement:
The options have to be open
There is a clear idea of what the public is being asked to do
There is a commitment to listen to the public’s views and take them into account in making the decision.
Engaging the public
Project integration of social research findings
Project planningMeasurable social objectives and outcomes:
• pre / post surveys of usage and perceptions
• realistic research timings to coincide with decision timelines
• planned resources to meet social research objectives
• (publication of lessons learned)
Approach for balancing legislation and ideals with community needs in planning river rehabilitation
Valerie Bain, Roger Bettess
HR Wallingford
Valerie Bain, Roger Bettess
HR Wallingford
Page 2
Overview
The URBEM Decision Framework• Setting objectives
• Using multi-criteria analysis
Example• Balancing WFD and community objectives
Page 3
Urban river rehabilitation in practice
River Quaggy, London, UK
• Before • After
Before: London Borough of Lewisham, Chinbrook Meadows, January 2003, Report on River RehabilitationAfter: Alfred Olfert, IOER Dresden, 2004
Page 4
Urban river rehabilitation in practice
Mill Race, Chrudrim, Czech Rep.
• Before • After
Before: Town of ChrudimAfter: Alfred Olfert, IOER Dresden, 2004
Page 5
URBEM project details
EC FP5: Nov 2002 – Oct 2005
www.urbem.net
Partners
CUW
Page 6
EVK4-CT-2002-00082
Urban River Basin Enhancement Methods (URBEM)Activity Chart
SUPPORT GUIDANCE
GENERIC APPROACHTO ASSESSING AND MANAGING RIVER REHABILITATION
DECISION GUIDANCE
Key
S Point for participation of stakeholders
Process decision End of process
Jump to different process
Process part
Main links between processes orinformation
1 Link to work package
Start of process
•Recommends suitable successindicators for different objectives•Provides information on application•Suggests existing data, models andassessments that (if available) can beused
Indicatorsof Success
D2.1Which indicators canbe used fordecision-making?
How to navigate the framework
Glossary andAppendices
Training andDissemination
WP1 WP11
Introductionto the
Framework
WP9
S1.1 S1.2 S1.3
Process 1a - Problem Formulation
Assess Baseline Condition
Set objectives* SetBoundaries
1. Define time-scale of plan or project
2. Define spatial extent of assessment
3. Define time-scale for assessment
4. Determine resources for assessment
6. Define success indicators and acceptability criteria (initial review to be refined during assessment)
Identify Controlling
Factors
1a.1 1a.2 1a.3 1a.4
1. Check legislative requirements
2. Determine financial limits
4. Check relevantstrategies and plans(including flooding,environmental, landuse planning etc)
* Can relate to policy, development plan or project
1. Set broad objectives
2. Consultation with stakeholders
3. Set specific objectives
SSS
Start
1. Review information on catchment
2. Identify stakeholders
2, 3, 4, 7
5, 2, 4, 7
7
Page 8
Process 1b - Defining method of assessment
Set criteria
1. Define criteria for each specific objective
Define scaleof measurement
of criteria
Normalisecriteria scales
Note: Normalisation method depends on the criteria
Go to Process 2a
FromProcess 1a
Select MCDMmethod
Is MCDM methodcompensatory?
Assign weightsto criteria
Yes
No5
3, 4, 5
5
5
5
Note: investigate uncertainty with sensitivity tests
1b.1 1b.2 1b.3 1b.4
1b.5
Page 9
Process 2a - Development of Options
Site selection Identify optionsDescribe the
consequencesof options
1. Use of modelling and other assessment methods as appropriate
2. Use of past experience
Scoreoptions
Note: score each criteria on each option using the normalised scale
Go to Process 2b
1. Consider controlling factors
2. Consider objectives
3. Consider likely cost
FromProcess 1b
5
2, 4, 5, 8, 9 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9
5
2a.1 2a.2 2a.3 2a.4SS
Page 10
Process 2b - Assessment of Options
Apply MCDMmethod
ReviewAssessment
1. Review weights
2. Review scores
3. Review results
2b.1 2b.2
Go to Process 3
1. Consider controlling factors
2. Consider objectives
3. Consider likely cost
FromProcess 2a
Is solutionacceptable?
Go toProcess 2a
Yes
No
55
Page 11
10
Process 3 - Implement, Monitor & Review
Decide Whatto Monitor
DesignMonitoring
Programme
ReviewMonitoring
Results
3.1 3.2 3.4
Are results acceptable?
ImplementOption andMonitoring
Go to Process 1a
Yes
No
S
S
3.3Review
MonitoringProgramme
3.6
Is monitoring still needed?
End
No
Yes
Are results useable?
Yes
No
From Process 2b
ReportAny Lessons
Learnt
3.5
Any new info. that might
alter objectives?
Yes
No
S
2
Page 12
1a.2 Formulating river rehabilitation goals and objectives and 1b.5 Assign weights
Broad Goals Weighting Specific Objectives Weighting Improve river aesthetics
0.3 Increase the number of meanders 0.1
Improve the natural appearance 0.2 Improve public amenity 0.2 Improve public access to the river 0.1 Improve public safety 0.1 Improve the ecological status of river
0.5 Modify hydromorphology of river to establish appropriate macro invertebrate populations
0.3
Improve the vegetation species diversity on the channel banks and river corridor
0.2
(Total sums to 1)
Page 13
1b.1 Setting criteria and1b.5 Assign weights
Specific objectives Criteria Weighting Increase the number of meanders Sinuosity 0.1 Improve the natural appearance Bed and bank material 0.2 Improve public access to the river Footpaths 0.06 River crossings 0.04 Improve public safety Accident control measures 0.05 Crime control measures 0.05 Modify hydromorphology of river to establish appropriate macro invertebrate populations
In-channel habitat diversity 0.15
In-channel flow diversity 0.15 Improve the vegetation species diversity on the channel banks and river corridor
Bank vegetation diversity and abundance
0.1
River corridor diversity and abundance
0.1
(Total sums to 1)
Page 14
1b.2 and 1b.3 Define criteria measurement scales and normalise
Criteria Measure Score on normalised scale
Sinuosity 1 1 1.06 2 1.09 3 1.14 4 1.18 5 Bed and bank material Mostly concrete bed, concrete banks 1 Natural bed, concrete banks 2 Concrete bed, semi-natural banks 3 Concrete bed, natural banks 4 Natural bed and banks 5 Footpaths Limited footpaths 1 Footpaths along one bank 2 Footpaths along both banks 3 Footpaths with lighting and seating 4 Footpaths with lighting, seating and
other features, e.g. flower pots 5
Page 15
Cont…
River crossings 1 pedestrian river crossing 1 2 pedestrian river crossings 2 3 pedestrian river crossings 3 4 pedestrian river crossings 4 More than 4 pedestrian river crossings 5
Life safety rings provided by riverside 1 Accident control measures Fencing provided where high banks 2 Low banks 3 Minimise in-channel concrete and
structures (e.g. weirs) 4
A selection of the above plus reduction of deep, fast flows
5
Clean up site litter and graffiti 1 Provide night time lighting 2
Crime control measures
Ensure visual transparency and accessibility
3
Community outreach scheme to promote crime prevention
4
A selection of above plus park and river wardens provided
5
Page 16
Cont…
Straight, concrete channel with few habitat features
1 In-channel habitat diversity
Straight channel with natural bed and banks
2
Meandering, natural channel 3 Meandering, natural channel with pools
and riffles 4
Meandering, natural channel with pools and riffles, microtopographic bed forms and variation of shade and light
5
In channel flow diversity Little in-channel flow variation 1 n/a 2 Medium in-channel flow variation 3 n/a 4 High in-channel flow variation 5
Page 17
Cont…
Low vegetation diversity and abundance 1 Bank vegetation diversity and abundance n/a 2 Medium vegetation diversity and
abundance 3
n/a 4 High vegetation diversity and
abundance 5
Low vegetation diversity and abundance 1 River corridor vegetation diversity and abundance n/a 2 Medium vegetation diversity and
abundance 3
n/a 4 High vegetation diversity and
abundance 5
Page 18
2a.2 Identify Options
Option 1
Option 2
1 Replace concrete channel with natural bed and banks 2 In-channel works to provide a meandering appearance 11 Techniques to provide in-channel habitat (narrowing, stone riffles, groynes etc) 12 Bank vegetation planting and maintenance
1 Replace concrete channel with natural bed and banks 2 In-channel works to provide a meandering appearance 5 Footpaths with lighting, seating and other features 6 Adding 1 river crossing 8 Landscaping for visual transparency and accessibility
Page 19
Cont…
Option 3
Option 4
5 Footpaths with lighting, seating and other features 6 Adding river crossings 8 Landscaping for visual transparency and accessibility 10 Provide a park / river warden 11 Techniques to provide in-channel habitat (narrowing, stone riffles, groynes etc) 13 River corridor vegetation planting and maintenance
1 Replace concrete channel with natural bed and banks 3 Footpaths along one bank 6 Adding 1 river crossing 7 Provide life safety rings 9 Fund community outreach scheme 11 Techniques to provide in-channel habitat (narrowing, stone riffles, groynes etc)
Page 20
2a.2 Describe consequences of options2b.1 Apply MCDM method
Using the weighted sum method
Page 21
Outcomes
Decision making• Options 1, 2 & 4 are within 2000 budget; 1 has highest
score so choose option 1.Remember!• Can apply alternative MCDM techniques• Should do sensitivity testing on weighting of objectives• Can use more objective methods to assign criteria
scores• Take on board stakeholder views• Follow other steps in the decision framework for
setting constraints etc.
Page 22
Conclusions
Balancing multiple objectives• Achieved through multi-criteria decision methods
Outcomes of MCDM• Scores options against the criteria developed to
measure the success of an option against the objectives
Dissemination and uptake• URBEM conference, publicity and contacts
Obtain all URBEM outputs here:www.urbem.net
The Avenue Coking Works
Remediation and Restoration
Suzanne Hewitt
CROCUS Seminar 4 – Methods and Tools12 October 2006CEH Wallingford
The Avenue former Coking Works and Chemical PlantEast Midlands Development Agency English Partnerships’ National Coalfields Programme
Located in Chesterfield, near WingerworthHunloke and Avenue Collieries late 1800s – 1930sCoking works and chemical plant constructed 1950sOperational until 1992Produced 18 MT of SunbriteEmployed 800 staff
98 HectaresHistorical Licensed Waste Facility
History
“Undoubtedly one of the finest in the world” Gas Journal 1956
History
History – Condition in 1996
Undoubtedly one of the finest in the world?
History – Condition in 1996
Project Objectives
English Partnerships, EMDA and the Consortium Project Team are committed to:
• Achieving a positive transformation whilst optimising value
• Prioritising and promote awareness of the need to protect the environment during site works
• Transforming the Avenue Site such that it becomes commerciallyviable and a community asset
Demolition
Asbestos
Substantial (but unknown) chemical residues
Dangerous structures
500 tanks, 5000 pipes
Demolition
Site Investigation
140 boreholes – herringbone pattern400+ trial pits‘000’s of chemical tests
Risk Assessment
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Process Results
Desk Study
Detailed Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment and refinement of initial conceptual model
Detailed Site Specific Quantitative Risk Assessmentbased on proposed landform/use
Historical contaminative land use and potential pollutant linkages identified (conceptual model)
Identification of contaminants of concern and pollutant linkages requiring further assessment
Identification of pollutant linkages considered to represent significant possibility of significant harm and potential for pollution of controlled waters
Risk Assessment
Based on end use of residential, light industrial/commercial, and amenities
Off Site Plant AreaStocking Area Waste Tip and
LagoonRiver and Flood Plain
NE
Water Table
Vapours
Direct Contact: Inhalation / ingestion
Aggressive attack on services / foundations
Leaching of contaminants migration into controlled waters
Wind blown particulates from exposed soils & during disturbance - onto third party land and general public
Lagoons, waste tip, plant area, river sediments “trawl”
Hotspot removal
Selective excavation
Material recovery
Waste minimisation
On-site treatment
Site Design
Approx 1.5M m3
earthworks
Development platform
Public amenity/ open space
Flood defence (EA)
Ecological enhancement
River Restoration
• River Rother bisects site adjacent to waste disposal lagoons
• River diverted on two occasions
• Realignment length 555m
• Ecological enhancement
• Flood defence
Environment Agency
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
TEP
River Restoration
Geomorphological Assessment
Walkover survey to characterise channel planform and cross section, gradient, bed and bank material, bedforms and features, floodplain connectivity, river continuity, sediment supply etc.
