Eddleston Water - CREW...Eddleston Water catchment ± 69 sq km Main river flows c 17 kms North-South in to the Tweed at Peebles Largely rural with two settlements ± Eddleston and

Eddleston Water Project: introduction to research aims & monitoring

Eddleston Water:

• Eddleston Water scoping study

• Eddleston Water restoration Phase II

• Eddleston Water restoration Phase III

Chris Spray, Alan Werritty, Tom Ball, Andrew Black, Michael Bonell, Nicole Archer & students

HNS

Cbec Ltd

NFU(S)

Forest Research

Tweed Foundation

Environment Agency

Partnership project, begun in 2009

Eddleston Water catchment – 69 sq km

• Main river flows c 17 kms North-South in to the Tweed at Peebles

• Largely rural with two settlements – Eddleston and Peebles

• Long history of river and flood plain

management – for agriculture mainly – and of flooding (1723, 1777, 1792, 1831, 1846, 1865, 1881, 1891,

1897, 1908, 1914, 1926, 1948, 1956, 1977, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1997, 2000, 2005)

• EU Conservation status as SAC for Ranunculus

type river, and Atlantic Salmon, Lampreys and Otters. SSSI interest also on beetles of riverine gravels

• Fails WFD status for Morphology (bad) and for

aquatic macrophytes (moderate)

Policy drivers for river restoration: Eddleston Water

Two main policy drivers:

• EC Water Framework Directive => Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003: Eddleston Water characterised as

having “poor” ecological status

• EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of Floods => Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: section 20 requires SEPA to assess whether the “alteration ... or restoration of natural features and

characteristics ... could contribute to management of flood risk” often referred to as natural flood management

Plus an over-riding Total Catchment Approach => added multiple benefits for other ecosystem services – water quality, fisheries,

biodiversity, recreation & tourism, etc

AND the question of stakeholders “permission to act”

Eddleston Water Project – initial scoping report 2010

Looked at the whole catchment, not just

flooding and habitats solely along the river

Output Recommendations:

• Characterisation of the catchment

• Locations and plans for physical restoration of

channel and floodplain

• Locations and plans for interventions to achieve

flood risk reductions

• Value for money and priorities for action

• Detailed monitoring

• Community consultation and engagement

Characterisation and current status:

landscapes, habitats, ecology.

Sources

Pathways

Proposed measures: locations and types

Selected groups of measures:

A: breach/set back embankments,

new fence margins, riparian

woodland, wet woodland, large

woody debris

C: re-meander channel, riparian

woodland

L: Reduced stocking density, tributary

woodland, floodplain forest

N: create ponds, wetlands, riparian

woodland block ditches, large woody

debris

Planting up hillsides & river banks

Log jams on tributaries

Working with Forestry Commission

Natural flood management: -

Influencing “sources” by intervention in the upper catchment, tributaries and hill slopes

Breach in embankments could permit temporary

flood storage on left bank during high flow events.

Re-meandering opportunities - Cringeltie

Natural flood management: Influencing “pathways” by interventions in the floodplain itself

Intensive monitoring programme

Proposed measures: flood storage u/s Eddleston (site A)

Natural flood management: -

Understanding the connectivity between hill-slopes, groundwater, floodplains and rivers

BGS and Dundee University joint study

Unique integrated hillslope-to-floodplain study

• Interviews with key stakeholders:

Scottish Govt, SEPA, Tweed Forum,

Scottish Borders Council, SNH, Tweed

Foundation, Scottish Water,

NFU(Scotland), Scottish Wildlife Trust,

RSPB, Country Landowners Business

Association.

• Interviews with landowners (three

floodplain and two upland famers)

middle-aged, male, long-term

landowners in the valley (>30 years) with

several sources of income.

• Literature review

Josselin Rouillard

Opportunities, constraints and barriers

Opportunities, constraints and barriers: farmers

• local expert knowledge must be

factored in to any planning;

• financial incentives must be set

at the right level – to sustain farm

units and to attract engagement;

• long-term, guaranteed

contractual arrangements to

deliver focused outcomes;

• simplicity in any contractual

arrangements.

Summary: - Aims & Objectives of Monitoring Strategy

Aim: to assess the effectiveness of the proposed measures for restoration

and natural flood management

Existing Monitoring programmes: - provided elements of the original Characterisation and baseline data

• Hydrometric monitoring – Shiplaw and March street; and Shiplaw rain gauge

• Landuse and habitat data – from aerial surveys done for SBC

• Water quality, ecology and fisheries data – for WFD water body compliance

Augmented and New Monitoring Networks: -

• Surface water monitoring

• Rainfall and weather

• Groundwater monitoring

• Hydro-geomorphology

• Detailed invertebrate, macrophyte, fishery, mammals.

Bio-physical Monitoring Strategy: Two levels:

Aim

- to assess changes in condition of key environmental aspects of the

catchment over time, and in relation to the impact of different

intervention techniques employed at specific locations - so as to assess

effectiveness of measures (include financial elements also)

(a) Catchment wide

Quantifying flood hydrographs, flows, Water body and

WFD statutory requirements for measuring ‘Ecological status’; and Site Condition Monitoring for SAC and SSSI ‘features’ (species & habitats)

(a) Individual Interventions

Quantifying the state of targeted environmental variables before and

after ‘interventions’ (re-meandering, flood plain forest, engineered log

jams, etc.), and in appropriate control situations.

Understanding the impact of changes on current land use

Current land use and straightened course of the

river: Current farming in

the flood plain is

predominantly

improved grass,

and cut for silage

Eddleston Water

was severely

straightened,

embanked and

shortened (c.30%)

at the end of the

18th Century – to

improve transport

and agricultural

production

A potential projected (modelled) flood regulation land use scenario

Flood risk regulation scenario:

Farming in the

floodplain is

replaced by Wet

Valley Woodland -

max flood

retention & high

Mannings ‘n’

River course has

now been “re-

meandered”, based on course of

the old river pre-

intervention (from

old maps) and

embankments

“removed”

Results: Ecosystem service scores

Flood regulation enhanced: Food and timber provisioning services reduced

Other services also increased in new scenario:

Eddleston Water - detailed monitoring of a typical

pilot catchment – for testing interventions and models

Integrated Monitoring networks & engagement:

River flow gauges

Ground water surveys and boreholes

Rainfall and weather stations

River habitats and hydromorphology

River biology – fish, plants, invertebrates

Land-owner & community engagement

Ecosystem services initiative

Partnership Approach

Eddleston Hydrometric Monitoring

Chris Spray

Andrew Black

Tom Ball

University of Dundee

Photo © BGS

Hydrometric monitoring objectives

• Characterise baseline hydrological response

• Assess hydrological effect of measures

• In practice: – Travel times

– Quickflow response

– Baseflow response

– Total runoff volumes

Hydrometric

network • 13 gauging

stations

• 4 rainfall sites

• 1 AWS

• Bohehole clusters

Monitoring technologies

Principles & practice in NFM

monitoring

• Suggested principles:

– Establish the baseline before implementing measures. 2 years baseline is recommended.

– Select monitoring sites carefully - site selection

affects data accuracy.

– Aim to maximise accuracy: it's vital that uncertainty in data collection < magnitude of the change you're

trying to detect

– Monitor as comprehensively as possible from the outset: level, flow, rain, water temperature, stable isotopes.....?

Aspects of practice

• Water level recorder siting - much to consider! – Safe access/operations – Suitable location for the intended purpose – Sensitivity of level to flow – Control stability – Can full range of levels be recorded? – Avoidance of impact risks arising from entrained debris – Avoidance of waterfalls: severe hysteresis effects – Viable flow gauging opportunities – Proximity of vehicle access – Not visible or vulnerable to potential vandals – etc etc

Aspects of practice

• Level recording: Hobo U2O in secure steel wells

Aspects of practice

• SonTek ADV for mid-range flow measurement

• Ott C-2 for shallow flows

• Or Valeport 802

Aspects of practice

• ADCP for high flow measurement

• Performance depends on water surface conditions

Aspects of practice

• Use of floats for validating velocities in peak flows

Aspects of practice

• Boreholoe network: surface water-groundwater interactions

Aspects of practice

• Non-contact methods for velocity measurement – proposals for future: Ott Kalesto-V or Sommer RQ-30

Aspects of practice

• Time lapse photography, whether via telemetry or not…

Compementary to the stream level time series: surface

saturation and ponding: foreground and in distance on both flood plains (and before the stream rises: hourly pics, 31.1.13)

Aspects of practice

• Time lapse photography, whether via telemetry or not (cost)

Also recommended: supplementary pics; inexpensive but effective, non telemetry

Aspects of practice

• Campbell CR1000, 3G modem, Campbell LoggerNet + RTMC Webserver

Aspects of practice: gauging strategy:

being there at the right time ADCP: peak of 2nd-

highest event in 22 years

of record

Single visit: well worth staying on site in major

peak rather than moving to next site

Aspects of practice

• TBR pulse counter loggers: suspected power pack issues.

• Staffing for high flow gaugings

• Real-time prediction of stream flows

• Also, raingauge siting issues (exposure)

Eddleston Water: Use of the

stream gauging network in

hydrological modelling

Tributary assessments, sources,

integration

Tom Ball, Andrew Black, Josh Arnott, Ken Samson, Stanislav Ruman

Surface DEM

Use of landcover information to inform surface parameterisation

Measured Hydrographs from August 10-12 2011 Event

Results

Modelling potential effects of

tributary NFM Interventions

Examining potential effects of tributary NFM Interventions

1. Middle Burn Flow restrictors

2. Longcote Burn

Floodplain

afforestation

Channel survey using dGPS

Run based on actual flow data August 10-12 2011 (peak observed h - 269.98)

2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 180010Aug2011 11Aug2011 12Aug2011

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Plan: Plan 02 River: Middle Burn Reach: 2 RS: 2

Time

Flo

w (

m3

/s)

Legend

Flow

2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 180010Aug2011 11Aug2011 12Aug2011

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Plan: Plan 02 River: Middle Burn Reach: 2 RS: 2

Time

Flo

w (

m3

/s)

Legend

Flow

August 11 2011 event – flow decoupling example

Intervention on

Junction 1 flow (m3/ s)

Junction 2 flow (m3/ s)

Junction 3 (main stem) flow (m3/ s)

Control (none)

1.56 2.28 3.32

Middle 1.52 2.22 3.25

Middle + Cowieslinn

1.55 2.23 3.25

Middle + Shiplaw

1.52 2.23 3.25

Middle + Cowieslinn + Shiplaw

1.55 2.27 3.28

Mid + Cowies + Shiplaw + Northern Part

1.52 2.24 3.27

Intervention on

Junction 1 flow (m3/ s)

Junction 2 flow (m3/ s)

Junction 3 (main stem) flow (m3/ s)

Control (none)

05:45 05:55 05:55

Middle 06:30 06:25 06:15

Middle + Cowieslinn

06:45 06:45 06:40

Middle + Shiplaw

06:30 06:50 06:40

Middle + Cowieslinn + Shiplaw

06:45 07:00 06:55

Mid + Cowies + Shiplaw + Northern Part

06:45 07:00 06:55