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