Uses and Applications M. Naura & J. Walker RHS Lead Region.

RIVER HABITATSURVEY

Uses and ApplicationsUses and Applications

M. Naura & J. WalkerM. Naura & J. Walker

RHS Lead RegionRHS Lead Region

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

AimsAims

– Natural asset registerNatural asset register

– State of the environment State of the environment

– Management prioritiesManagement priorities

RHS site distributionRHS site distributionin the Sankey catchmentin the Sankey catchment

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

River RehabilitationRiver Rehabilitation

ISSUEISSUE– Habitat ModificationHabitat Modification

RESPONSERESPONSE– River restorationRiver restoration

form, processesform, processes

– River rehabilitationRiver rehabilitation mimic natural formmimic natural form

– Habitat enhancementHabitat enhancement cosmetic improvementscosmetic improvements

STRATEGY ?STRATEGY ?

Criteria for selectionCriteria for selection

Low Existing Geomorphological Low Existing Geomorphological DiversityDiversity

Moderate-High Stream Power Moderate-High Stream Power

High Existing ModificationHigh Existing Modification

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

Geomorphological Geomorphological DiversityDiversity

00 1-41-4 5-95-9 10-1410-14 15-1915-19 20-3020-30

Stream PowerStream Power MinimalMinimal Very lowVery low LowLow ModerateModerate HighHigh Very highVery high

Habitat ModificationHabitat Modification PristinePristine Semi-naturalSemi-natural Predominately Predominately

unmodifiedunmodified Obviously Obviously

modifiedmodified Significantly Significantly

modifiedmodified Heavily/Heavily/

extensive extensive modificationmodification

Applying the Work to the Applying the Work to the Field Field

Fisheries interest in riffle rehabilitationFisheries interest in riffle rehabilitation

first choice:first choice:

River WeaverRiver Weaver

Substrate TypeSubstrate Type

% Gravel % Gravel and/or and/or CobbleCobble

0-100-10 10-2010-20 20-3020-30 30-4030-40 40-6040-60 60-8060-80 80-10080-100

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

ConclusionsConclusions

Weaver has few natural rifflesWeaver has few natural riffles Predominantly sand-bed river Predominantly sand-bed river

systemsystem

Recommend against introductionRecommend against introduction Suggest alternative sites that are Suggest alternative sites that are

more suitablemore suitable

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

Black BrookBlack BrookSite Post-Site Post-RehabilitationRehabilitation(Artist’s(Artist’sImpression)Impression)

Work in Progress at the Work in Progress at the Black Brook SiteBlack Brook Site

Treat problem at sourceTreat problem at source

RHS Contribution to the Mersey RHS Contribution to the Mersey Flood Alleviation SchemeFlood Alleviation Scheme

Flood Defence AimFlood Defence Aim– assess existing defences provide assess existing defences provide

increased levels of serviceincreased levels of service Our aimOur aim

– promote integrated river basin promote integrated river basin managementmanagement

– reduce environmental impacts of the reduce environmental impacts of the schemescheme

Typical Section of Mersey Typical Section of Mersey in S. Manchesterin S. Manchester

100% Resectioned & bermed,straightened, widened,predominant glide, silty

substrate

Problems at the siteProblems at the site

Fine sediment problemFine sediment problem– channel accumulation - loss of channel accumulation - loss of

capacitycapacity– accumulation on berms and at bank accumulation on berms and at bank

toe - stability of embankmentstoe - stability of embankments Lack of Habitat DiversityLack of Habitat Diversity

– Homogenous bank habitat, limited Homogenous bank habitat, limited flow type diversity, few in-channel flow type diversity, few in-channel features, regular heavy maintenancefeatures, regular heavy maintenance

Removing Fine Sediments Removing Fine Sediments From Banks and BermsFrom Banks and Berms

The Role of RHSThe Role of RHS

Fine sediment problemFine sediment problem– Catchment audit to identify sediment Catchment audit to identify sediment

sourcessources– Suggest catchment management Suggest catchment management

techniques to reduce inputs. techniques to reduce inputs.

Flooding problemFlooding problem– Identify potential flood storage areas Identify potential flood storage areas

upstreamupstream

Sampling strategySampling strategy

Random sample of 20% of Random sample of 20% of classified riverclassified river

Geomorphological inter-reach Geomorphological inter-reach surveysurvey

Inter-reach fluvial auditInter-reach fluvial audit

Quantity and type of erosion and Quantity and type of erosion and depositiondeposition

Causes (natural or artificial) of Causes (natural or artificial) of erosion or depositionerosion or deposition

Additional potential for wetland Additional potential for wetland restoration? restoration?

BenefitsBenefits

Flood DefenceFlood Defence– Reduction of maintenance needsReduction of maintenance needs– Reduction of scheme designReduction of scheme design

ConservationConservation– Reduction of environmental impactReduction of environmental impact– Potential wetland restorationPotential wetland restoration

ErosioErosionn

Site Based Analysis - The River Site Based Analysis - The River KeekleKeekle

Headwaters of Keekle - planning Headwaters of Keekle - planning application for open cast coal mineapplication for open cast coal mine

Regional conservation Regional conservation designations, but habitat value of designations, but habitat value of the site in a national context ?the site in a national context ?

Occurrence of Key RHS Occurrence of Key RHS Habitat Features at the Habitat Features at the

KeekleKeekleFEATURE Occurrence on 4

Keekle sites% occurrence at thenational level

% occurrence atthe regional level

Marsh 4 7.54 9.52

Carr 1 3.49 0.68

Flush 2 4.31 4.76

Debris Dam 3 18.24 9.52

Wetland Extensive 2 2.65 1.81

Natural Open Water 1 3.7 2.5

Debrisdam+Marsh+Flush+Carr

1 0.07 (2/3046) 0

Debris dam+Marsh+Flush 2 0.36 (11/3046) 0.0034

Debris dam+Marsh 1 1.64 (50/3046) 0.006

Predicting species Predicting species distributiondistribution

Assessing the County of Assessing the County of Sussex for Watervole Sussex for Watervole

HabitatHabitat

S. Region Conservation staff S. Region Conservation staff requested details of occurrence requested details of occurrence and distribution of factors which and distribution of factors which comprise good watervole habitatcomprise good watervole habitat

Factors were defined by S. Region, Factors were defined by S. Region, and mapped by the Lead Region and mapped by the Lead Region TeamTeam

Habitat Suitability Habitat Suitability VariablesVariables

Suitability defined according to Suitability defined according to factors:factors:– Slow flowing waterSlow flowing water– Steep/soft banksSteep/soft banks– Not heavily shadedNot heavily shaded– Extensive marginal vegetationExtensive marginal vegetation– Land use is not heavily grazedLand use is not heavily grazed– Simple banktop vegetationSimple banktop vegetation

Distribution of Habitat Distribution of Habitat VariablesVariables

0 variables0 variables 1 variable1 variable 2 variables2 variables

3 variables 3 variables 4 variables4 variables

FindingsFindings

Unfortunately few sites with most Unfortunately few sites with most or all of the required habitat or all of the required habitat variablesvariables

However S. Region Conservation However S. Region Conservation staff confirmed that of the 6 sites staff confirmed that of the 6 sites with 3 or 4 variables present 4 had with 3 or 4 variables present 4 had recorded watervole sightingsrecorded watervole sightings

Project DevelopmentsProject Developments

The information produced will now The information produced will now be used to considerbe used to consider– Habitat improvement workHabitat improvement work– Potential watervole introductionsPotential watervole introductions

Problem for reintroduction, and for Problem for reintroduction, and for RHS analysis - occurrence of Mink RHS analysis - occurrence of Mink

Technique applicable to any speciesTechnique applicable to any species– similar habitat review for water shrews similar habitat review for water shrews

(national application)(national application)

Coarse Fisheries Coarse Fisheries ApplicationApplication

Aim: to develop predictive tools to Aim: to develop predictive tools to better target North East fisheries better target North East fisheries rolling programmerolling programme– Identification of community typesIdentification of community types– Identification of community habitatsIdentification of community habitats– Prediction of community types Prediction of community types

according toaccording to habitat features (RHS)habitat features (RHS) map-derived variablesmap-derived variables

Pilot Study on The River Pilot Study on The River NiddNidd

Continuous fisheries and RHS Continuous fisheries and RHS surveyssurveys

Analysis of fish community Analysis of fish community distributiondistribution

Predictive modelsPredictive models

Distribution of R. Nidd Distribution of R. Nidd Coarse Fish CommunitiesCoarse Fish Communities

SubstrateSubstrateDistributionDistributionon the Niddon the Nidd

Coarse Fish Community Coarse Fish Community Distribution in Yorkshire Distribution in Yorkshire

RiversRivers

Prediction of Coarse Fish Prediction of Coarse Fish Community Distribution Community Distribution

According to Altitude and According to Altitude and Distance from SourceDistance from Source

Trout/ Grayling Gudgeon Roach/Perch

Constant -26.7 -22.2 -25.8

Altitude 3.3 2.6 2.6

Distancefrom Source

4.21 4.3 4.8

% SUCCESS = 65%

Predicted Community Predicted Community Types in Yorkshire RiversTypes in Yorkshire Rivers

ConclusionConclusion

Fish community distribution can be Fish community distribution can be predicted from site data (RHS) predicted from site data (RHS)

Fish community distribution can be Fish community distribution can be predicted from Map datapredicted from Map data

Prediction of species distribution?Prediction of species distribution?

The Native CrayfishThe Native Crayfish

Endangered species whose Endangered species whose distribution is limited bydistribution is limited by– competition by introduced alien competition by introduced alien

speciesspecies– fungal disease: the crayfish plaguefungal disease: the crayfish plague

Aim:Aim:– to predict habitat suitability for to predict habitat suitability for

crayfish using RHScrayfish using RHS

Sample of combined Sample of combined RHS/Crayfish surveysRHS/Crayfish surveys

Use of RHS to Predict the Use of RHS to Predict the Occurrence of the Native Occurrence of the Native

CrayfishCrayfish

Pairing of existing RHS sites with Pairing of existing RHS sites with crayfish datacrayfish data– Average distance between sites = 1.7kmAverage distance between sites = 1.7km

Selection of a subset of variablesSelection of a subset of variables– First selection - Chi-square & Mann-First selection - Chi-square & Mann-

WhitneyWhitney– Second selection using logistic regressionSecond selection using logistic regression

Crayfish Features with Crayfish Features with Positive and Negative Positive and Negative

InfluencesInfluencesPositive Influence Negative Influence

Exposed Boulders Cobble substrate

Riffles (Number) Gravel/pebble/sandbanks

Boulder Cobble Banks Eroding cliffs

Overhanging Boughs Poached banks

Tree Shading Reinforced banks

Exposed tree roots

MODEL SUCCESS: 95%MODEL SUCCESS: 95%

Three ecological Three ecological dimensionsdimensions

COVERCOVER– Exposed bouldersExposed boulders

FOODFOOD– RifflesRiffles– Tree shading, overhanging boughsTree shading, overhanging boughs

EROSIONEROSION– Poached banksPoached banks– Gravel/sand banksGravel/sand banks– Eroding cliffsEroding cliffs– Reinforced toeReinforced toe

Discriminant Analysis on Discriminant Analysis on Crayfish Occurrence Crayfish Occurrence

According to Transformed According to Transformed Altitude, Slope and Altitude, Slope and

Distance from SourceDistance from SourceCrayfishabsent

Crayfishpresent

Constant -29.067 -28.054

Altitude 5.900 4.879

Slope 2.605 4.862

Distancefrom Source

15.087 15.657

% SUCCESS = 70%

Model relevance and Model relevance and applicabilityapplicability

RIVER HABITATSURVEY

Implementing RHSImplementing RHS

RHS has extensive national, regional, RHS has extensive national, regional, catchment and site based applicationcatchment and site based application

RHS is a multi-functional tool that can RHS is a multi-functional tool that can be used for delivering integrated river be used for delivering integrated river basin managementbasin management

That’s all Folks !That’s all Folks !