uses and applications marc naura & mark diamond rhs lead region
Post on 20-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
RIVER HABITATSURVEY
Uses and ApplicationsUses and Applications
Marc Naura & Mark DiamondMarc Naura & Mark Diamond
RHS Lead RegionRHS Lead Region
River Habitat SurveyRiver Habitat Survey
AimsAims
A standard field methodologyA standard field methodology
objective
statistically robust
widely applicable
practicable: target time, 1 hour
ObjectiveObjective
A
B
‘No perceptible flow’ in deeper pool
Bar bar exposed under low flows
Unbroken standing waves observed as shallow flow over riffle
A
B
StatisticallyStatistically robustrobust
Between surveyor variability reducedBetween surveyor variability reduced– simple choicessimple choices– tests on different river typestests on different river types
Survey structureSurvey structure– use of transectsuse of transects– survey lengthsurvey length– spacing of transectsspacing of transects– sweep-upsweep-up
Widely applicableWidely applicable
RHS form: RHS form: Two main sectionsTwo main sections
SPOT-CHECKSSPOT-CHECKS
SWEEP-UPSWEEP-UP
Features recordedFeatures recorded
EROSIONEROSION– eroding/stable cliffseroding/stable cliffs
DEPOSITIONDEPOSITION– side/point/mid channel barsside/point/mid channel bars
VEGETATION STRUCTUREVEGETATION STRUCTURE– channel & banks channel & banks
FLOWFLOW– 10 Flow types10 Flow types
Other featuresOther features BANK PROFILESBANK PROFILES
– natural: undercut...gentlenatural: undercut...gentle– modified: modified:
resectioned..embankedresectioned..embanked
TREESTREES– extent & associated featuresextent & associated features
CHANNEL FEATURESCHANNEL FEATURES– waterfall,riffles/pools etc.waterfall,riffles/pools etc.– boulders, exposed sedimentboulders, exposed sediment
LAND USE (50m)LAND USE (50m)– 13 land use categories13 land use categories
Management featuresManagement features
MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT– resectioning/resectioning/
reinforcementreinforcement– poaching (trampling)poaching (trampling)
ROADS & BRIDGESROADS & BRIDGES
FLOW REGULATIONFLOW REGULATION– weir/sluices/culvertsweir/sluices/culverts
Baseline survey networkBaseline survey network
England and Wales4569 sites
Scotland779 sites
Northern Ireland266 sites
From 1994 to 1996
Habitat modification score (HMS) categories
0 Pristine0 - 2 Semi-natural3 - 8 Predominantly unmodified9 - 20 Obviously modified21 - 44 Significantly modified45 or more Severely modified
Footnote: semi-natural includes pristine channels
Example:assessment of Example:assessment of Lowland low energy site with Lowland low energy site with
an HQA=65an HQA=65
0
5
10
15
20
25
Perc
ent
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70+
Distribution of HQA for nearest neighbour sites on PCA map
Application ScalesApplication Scales
Flood DefenceObectives
FisheriesObectives
Flood Defence issueChannel capacity
Fisheries issueNo fish
Catchment IssueCatchment Issue
Accelerated ErosionAccelerated Erosion
Local AuthoritiesAgenda
Local authoritiesIssues
AnglersAgenda
AnglersIssues
AimsAims
Prioritise managementPrioritise management
Integrate Integrate function managementfunction management for for CCatchment Issuesatchment Issues
– Define strategy tailored to catchment Define strategy tailored to catchment and management needsand management needs
– Treat problem at sourceTreat problem at source
– Identify catchment issuesIdentify catchment issues
Prioritise managementPrioritise management
Habitat Quality & Habitat Quality & Modification in England & Modification in England &
WalesWales
Uses: Global overview, Leaps, Other local Uses: Global overview, Leaps, Other local applicationsapplicationsHQA HMI
Sankey / GlazeManagement Evidence
Region: North WestDredging (% Occurrence): 0
Number of Sites: 10Mowing (% Occurrence): 14
Quality Indices Enhancement (% Occurrence): 14
Median GQA: 3 Roadbridges (% Occurrence): 14
Median HMI Index: 4 Poaching (% Occurrence): 10
Average HMI Score: 26 Resectioning (% Occurrence): 60
Average HQA Score: 34 Embanked (% Occurrence):: 29
Land Use OccurrenceArtificial Features
Occurrence of Extensive Woodland (%): 20Culverts (% Occurrence): 20
Occurrence of Extensive Urban Land (%): 50Outfalls (% Occurrence): 40
Weirs (% Occurrence): 10 Occurrence of Extensive Agricultural Land (%): 70
Fords (% Occurrence): 0 Occurrence of Extensive Semi Rural Land(%): 0
LEAP QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Identify catchment issuesIdentify catchment issues
Catchment scale Catchment scale applicationapplication
The Sankey Now ProjectThe Sankey Now Project
n=125
Management impactManagement impact
0
20
40
60
80
Sankey Whole Reference Network
Significantly/ Severely Modified
Pristine to Predominantly Unmodified
n = 125
n = 4569
Determining a Sub-set of Similar Reference SitesDetermining a Sub-set of Similar Reference Sites
Low altitude/Low slope
High altitude/High slope
High energy
Low energy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Sankey Sub-set ofreference sites
Whole referenceNetwork
Significantly/Severely Modified
Pristine to Predominantly Unmodified
n = 125
n = 277 n = 4569
Gen. Info: Landuse in the Gen. Info: Landuse in the Sankey CatchmentSankey Catchment
WoodedWooded AgriculturalAgricultural Semi-ruralSemi-rural UrbanUrban
Define strategy tailored to Define strategy tailored to catchment and catchment and
management needsmanagement needs
Fisheries interest in riffle Fisheries interest in riffle rehabilitationrehabilitation
first choice:first choice:
River WeaverRiver Weaver
Substrate Analysis of Weaver and Occurrenceof Riffles, Compared to National and RegionalMean Averages
Substage Type National Regional Weaver
Bed Rock 3.2 6.6 2.9
Boulders 3.8 8.2 0.2
Cobbles 14.3 26.9 8.9
Gravel/Pebble 34.0 22.2 22.9
Sand 5.5 9.6 33.1
Silt 20.3 15.3 21.3
Clay 4.3 0.5 0
No. of Riffles 5.35 4.52 3.91
Criteria Used to Assess Criteria Used to Assess Rehabilitation PotentialRehabilitation Potential
S lopeD ischarge
W idth
S tream P ow er
E ros ionD epos itionS ubstrate
F low Types
G eom orph . D ivers ity
R ein forced, R esectionedE m banked, B erm s,
C u lverts , A rt. substrate,F ord, P oach ing
H M I
R eha bilita tion Potentia l Loca tion Ma p
Sites with Rehabilitation Sites with Rehabilitation PotentialPotential
RHS SitesRHS Sites Potential Potential
general general rehabilitationrehabilitation
Potential Potential rehabilitation rehabilitation for fisheriesfor fisheries
Black BrookBlack BrookSite Prior toSite Prior toRehabilitationRehabilitation
Work in Progress at the Work in Progress at the Black Brook SiteBlack Brook Site
Test catchment issuesTest catchment issues
Silt deposition on the Silt deposition on the Nadder Catchment Nadder Catchment
Erosion IndicatorsErosion Indicators
Depositional Features Depositional Features
Fine Sediment Source Fine Sediment Source IndexIndex
#
###
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
####
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
##
Erosion Indicators (from bank sensitivity index) for RHS Sites on the Nadder Catchment
Nadder CatchmentRiver Network
Erosion IndicatorsExistingPotentialHistorical
Erosion Indicators
Fig. 21: Depositional Featutes on the Nadder Catchment
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Nadder CatchmentRiver Network
UnvegetatedVegetated
Depositional Features
Fine Sediment Source Index for RHS sites on the Nadder Catchment
#
###
#
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
Nadder CatchmentRiver Network
Fine Sediment Source Index# 0 - 32# 33 - 60# 61 - 90# 91 - 122# 123 - 160
Fine Sediment Sources
ConclusionConclusion
Catchment in a stabilising stateCatchment in a stabilising state
Potential for erosionPotential for erosion
Fine sediments from land use run-Fine sediments from land use run-offoff
Fisheries HabitatsFisheries Habitats
Habitat suitability model forHabitat suitability model for– Salmon and Trout FrySalmon and Trout Fry– Trout ParrTrout Parr– Salmon ParrSalmon Parr– Salmonid spawning habitatSalmonid spawning habitat
#S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S #S
#S #S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
Nadder CatchmentRiver Network
#S Suitable Salmonid Habitats
Suitable Salmonid Habitats
#S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S #S
#S #S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
Nadder CatchmentRiver Network
#S Suitable Salmonid Habitats
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
####
###
#
#
#
#
#
##
###
##
#
r
Barriers to Migration
#
# Major weirs
Intermediate weirs
Potential Management Potential Management Issues Issues
Land-use and riparian vegetationLand-use and riparian vegetation
River connectivityRiver connectivity
Treat problem at sourceTreat problem at source
RHS Contribution to the Mersey RHS Contribution to the Mersey Flood Alleviation SchemeFlood Alleviation Scheme
100% Resectioned & bermed,straightened, widened,predominant glide, silty
substrate
Removing Fine Sediments Removing Fine Sediments From Banks and BermsFrom Banks and Berms
ErosioErosionn
Predicting species Predicting species distributiondistribution
Distribution of R. Nidd Distribution of R. Nidd Coarse Fish CommunitiesCoarse Fish Communities
SubstrateSubstrateDistributionDistributionon the Niddon the Nidd
Predicted Community Predicted Community Types in Yorkshire RiversTypes in Yorkshire Rivers
DevelopmentsDevelopments
RHS database 3.2RHS database 3.2 Water Framework DirectiveWater Framework Directive RHS in EuropeRHS in Europe Educational CDROMEducational CDROM Corporate plan:Corporate plan:
– setting habitat targets for 2002/2003setting habitat targets for 2002/2003
H ead o f C on serva tionP au l R avenH ead O ffice
Tech n ica l exp ertsG eom orp h o log y, M .N ew son , M . C la rke
S ta tis t ic s , J . Je ffe rsC on serva tion , N . H o lm es
R H S P ro jec t B oardM eetin g tw ice a year
Tech n ica l E xp ertJ im W alker
G eom orp h o log y,M od e llin g , Q u eries
U ser G rou pM eets tw ice a year
R H S exp erts in each reg ionC om m en ts on d eve lop m en ts
C on su ltan ts
P ro jec t O ffice rD avid C orb e lli
L E A P , Q u eriesP rom otion
S c ien tific O ffice rH e len a P arson s
Q u eries , Tra in in gD ata an a lys is , N ew s le tte r
R H S L ead R eg ion Team L ead erM arc N au ra
N orth W es t R eg ion
R eg ion a l F R C N m an ag erM ark D iam on d
N orth W es t R eg ion
C on serva tion Tech n ica l G rou pR ep ort on ce a year
B u d g et h o ld er
D irec to r o f W ate r M an ag em en tG eoff M an ceH ead O ffice
A g en cy B oardC h ie f E xecu tive
River Habitat Survey Lead River Habitat Survey Lead RegionRegion
Service Level AgreementService Level Agreement
Input of data…free of charge!Input of data…free of charge! QueriesQueries Methodological adviceMethodological advice Database management and Database management and
trainingtraining Development of applicationsDevelopment of applications Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance
Quality controlQuality control Our role Our role
– 4 levels4 levels Visual check at receipt of formVisual check at receipt of form Logical checks on all sites and Logical checks on all sites and
surveyorssurveyors Random checks on forms + photosRandom checks on forms + photos Specific checks (site visit, Specific checks (site visit,
hydrographs)hydrographs)
– Check on all trainersCheck on all trainers– New surveyors:New surveyors:
thorough check of first 10 sitesthorough check of first 10 sites
RIVER HABITATSURVEY
FutureFuture
2004-2006 National survey (4500 sites)2004-2006 National survey (4500 sites) Catchment survey for Habitat Quality TargetsCatchment survey for Habitat Quality Targets Catchment survey for LeapsCatchment survey for Leaps RHS on the InternetRHS on the Internet