CaBA Conference 2015

1. Ca
B A
tchment
ased pproach Partnerships for Action
Catchment Based Approach
Conference
Monday, 8th June 2015
Fishmongers’ Hall, London
CaBA15

2. Ca
B A
tchment
ased pproach Partnerships for Action
Levering Additional Funds
Chair – Helen Perkins
The Wildlife Trusts

3. Ca
B A
tchment
ased pproach Partnerships for Action
Andy Whyle & Mark Anderson
Ricoh SUDS
Levering Additional Funds

4. Ricoh SUDS:
Context &
Partners
Andy Whyle - RPL Environment Officer
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andywhyle

5.  21,590km2
 10 Catchments
 912
waterbodies
 5.3m people
 Dominant
land use
agriculture &
forestry
The
Magnificent
Severn

6. The Magnificent Severn CaBa Group
• 6 Catchment Partnerships
• 46 projects completed 2013-15
• 103 active partners/stakeholders
• Total estimated spend in period 2013- 2015 £8m

8. Middle Severn Catchment Steering Group
Clean Stream Team
Community / Business / Wildlife Trust / Agency
Partnership • Water sampling
• Report pollution
• Investigate Source
Pollution
• Stop Pollution
• Improve water quality

9. Friends of Apley: water sampling
BESST / EA: Electric Fishing
SWT / Ricoh Eco Ninjas - SamplingLocal Partners: Pollution monitoring

11. Ricoh SUDS:
Project funding
justification
approaches
Mark Anderson – RPL Maintenance Manager
https://www.linkedin.com/in/markanderson55

12. RPL Site - Existing Surface Water Drainage Map
Outfall #1
Surface Water
Approx. 35% Outfall #2
SW Drain
65% of
site
RPL Over
Head Cost.
Surface water
drainage
charges
£48,500/yr –
Calculated on
surface area of
roof and hard
standing areas
(roads, roofs,
car parks etc.)
North
RPL2
Building
RPL1
BuildingRPL3
Building
Site
Entrance
Rain Water
Drainage
Zone #1
Rain
Water
Drainage
Zone #2

13. Existing Site Drainage Controls 2015
Interceptor drain chamber
designed to separate oils
and solids from storm
water. Not designed for
diffuse pollution
 Site Drainage Map
 Position of interceptor drains
Interceptor
Drain
RPL Drainage designed in 1993,
based upon OLD Hydrocarbon
toners. New SPR toner types are
Wax based and become Diffuse
when left in water (produce
coloured water)

14. Emission failures
Bag Filter failures
Unauthorised / Incorrect disposal
Ground
Remediation /
Site drainage
failure
Control of Contractors
waste failure
Building Systems failure
RPL Pollution Incident Risk
RPL historical incidents
2010 - Resulted in
pollution incident
in Priorslee lake.
EA were informed
by RPL staff. RPL
only escaped
enforcement action
due to prompt
action and ambient
water temperature.

15. RPL Pollution Incident Risk
RPL Incident reporting database from 2011 onwards shows
26 incidents due to spills in outside areas.
Current RPL Business Continuity plans include spill response
training for Key staff and spill equipment maintained in key zones.

16. RPL Existing SW Drainage - Out To Priorslee
RPL Surface Water Drainage Route
Wesley Brook water course
Priorslee
Balancing
Lake
Outfall to
BrookIn the case of a Toner
spill during rainy UK
weather there is Large risk
of toner washing into
drains and then into brook
and lake – If this Occurs,
RPL May have to STOP all
operations under direction
of UK Environment
Agency
Surface
Water (Rain)
Drainage
Existing RPL Drainage
designed in 1993, based upon
OLD Hydrocarbon toners. New
SPR toner types need different
pollution protection strategy
designed for ‘Diffuse
Pollution.’
RPL2
Building
RPL1
Building
RPL3
Building
Site
Entrance
RPL Drainage controls Not
‘Fit for Purpose’

17. RPL Pollution Incident Risk
RPL Business has changed. From 2010 onwards largest RPL
business unit has been toner colour filling (TCF). RPL use
Customer Impact Analysis of the loss of TCF business, the
following comparison highlights the business risk changes.
Customer Business Impact – Time Based (August 2014)
Business Unit
Toner Colour Bottling
4 Hours 8 Hours 24 Hours 2 Days 1 Week 2 Weeks 4 Weeks
Toner Colour Bottling 2008 Manageable Manageable Disruptive Disruptive Critical Critical Disastrous
Toner Colour Bottling Aug 13 Manageable Manageable Disruptive Critical Disastrous Disastrous Disastrous
Current RPL Business Continuity plans include;
Safety stocks, redundant equipment and utility design, flexible manpower
strategy, business continuity management plans, risk assessment and
management controls, drainage design and 5s controls.
Current RPL Site Environment Risk Assessment shows significant
vulnerability to pollution incident on site. The pollution could enter
drainage system and could result in site closure with associated
business stoppage, as a result of enforcement action taken by UK
Environment Agency. Two days disruption is CRITICAL

18. RPL Drainage Options Matrix
Design Option Site
disruption
Cost / ROI RPL Site
Benefits
Decision
Upgrade drainage
containment tanks
Installed to all 3
RPL buildings.
Serious site
access &
production
disruption
£950,000 /
19 years
Pollution risk
Eliminated;
Reduced
Drainage Charges
X
Install secondary
drainage system
& containment
tanks to site.
No Production
disruption,
some site
access
disruption
£680,000 /
14 years
Pollution risk
Eliminated;
Reduced
Drainage Charges
X
Install SuDS
scheme utilising
automated
pollution
containment
technology and
bioremediation
techniques
No Production
disruption,
some site
access
disruption
£250,000 /
4 years
Pollution risk &
Drainage Charges
Eliminated;
Site Amenity
Improvement;
Biodiversity
improvement;
UK Exemplar
SuDS Project.
Proceed to
Use UK
Government
Grant funds
to produce
Detailed
design

19. EU / UK Water Legal Context - March 2014
 Current worldwide focus on reduction of water use, water flood
management and improvement in water quality.
 In EU latest legislation is focusing on drainage systems, especially with
regard to drainage discharge quality into rivers & lakes.
 The EU “Water Framework Directive” (WFD) has been issued to manage
water quality. Existing Legislation ‘Water resources act & regulations
2009’ requires all companies to ensure risk of pollution is minimised and
water use is monitored and reduced.
 WFD target is to improve water quality in rivers / lakes so that all can
achieve “Good Ecological Status” by 2027.
 In UK there are MANY target areas for
improvement including:
– Run-off from trading and industrial areas (i.e. RPL)
 Telford area (RPL) has been identified as a
“failing catchment” and will be subject to
increased EA monitoring and action.
There is no NEW law in 2014 but new regulations are ‘open
for consultation’ with implementation planned for 2016
EA Water
Quality
Map of
West UK
& Wales
Telford
Area

20. RPL SUDS Budget and ROI
 Suds Construction Budget set as £250,000 (estimated)
 Stage #1 – create tender document and gain competitive
quotation to fix actual cost.
 Stage #1a – Submit detailed survey documents to achieve
local government planning approval to proceed.
 ROI Based upon Reduction in Surface water charge to Zero
+ RPL enhancement to showcase factory to increase sales.
 Currently RPL pay £48,500/year to Severn Trent Water
authority for Surface Water Drainage charges. Installation of
SUDS scheme reduces this charge to zero.
 Resulting Savings – Year #1 = £48500, Year #2 = £97,000,
Year #3 = £145,500, Year #4 = £194,000 (not including extra
sales opportunity benefits.)
 If RPL proceed with this project it is possible to bid for
Government Grant Funding for project (estimated at £50,000)
for ‘National Exemplar Project’ for flood water management.

21. RPL SUDS ROI Investment Appraisal

22. Working with RPL’s Stakeholders
 RPL’s strong stakeholder
partnerships have been used
to gain Government funding to
produce detailed design of
RPL site SuDS scheme to
meet these new requirements
 Though RPL membership of
Business Environment
Sustainability Support Telford
(BESST) group, £15k funds
have been utilised to design an
exemplar SUDS project at RPL
 This project design gives RPL
tangible benefits, allowing us to
express our environmental
responsibility for the site and
enhance our ‘showcase site.’
European
Parliament
UK Parliament
DEFRA
Environment
Agency
Shropshire
Wildlife Trust
BESST
RPL
Funding to
Promote
Water
Framework
Directive
(WFD)
Funding for
Local
Projects
Partnership
Strategy &
Funding
Project
Design
Innovation
& Delivery
Government
Grant
Funding

23. Stage 1 (2014-2015) - Reduce business risk
from pollution incident – Proposed design
Flow of water
RPL-2
Building
Pollution incident
containment tank
Upper level Pool
Lower level SUDs
Pools for Bioremediation of
Diffuse pollution
Hydrodynamic
Separator
Downstream
Defender
(Vortex
Separators)
Hydro-brake
http://www.hydro-
int.com/uk/products/hydro-brake-
optimum
RPL-1
To Existing
Outfall #2
Stage 1- Project
Budget Cost
£200,000
Cascade
between
levels
http://www.hydro-
int.com/uk/products/downstrea
m-defender

24. RPL Unique UK Exemplar Design Proposal
 RPL SuDS project is Unique in UK
 First time in UK a Large Private sector Organisation has
deployed Retrofit SuDS for Business improvement.
 Unique combination of hydraulic site model design,
automated spill response to switch drainage to containment
tank, latest design ‘Downstream Defender‘ and ‘HydroBrake’
pollution prevention technology matched to Bio-remediation of
pollution within water detention pools.
 RPL SuDS solution utilises redundant land on RPL site to
create new Biodiversity Habitat
 Long term plan to turn this area into a specialised nature
reserve for all biodiversity and promote Ricoh CSR approach.
 Creation of UK Exemplar site for Retrofit SuDS to promote
unique approach on RPL site.

25. RPL Existing site layout
RPL2
Building
RPL1
Building
RPL3
Building
RPL
Unused
Land
RPL Land
Available
for
Possible
expansion

26. RPL Proposed Site layout with SuDS
Upper level pool
Cascade
Lower Level
Water Pool
Employee Walkway
Employee access
Bird Observation
Hide
Employee
Walkway with
interpretation
boards
RPL2
Building
RPL1
Building

27. RPL SuDS link to Ricoh Environment Targets

28. So Long..And thanks for
all the Fish …
Any questions?

29. Ca
B A
tchment
ased pproach Partnerships for Action
Jo McIndoe
Groundwork
Levering Additional Funds

30. Delivering sustainable CABA
partnerships:
exploring the economic,
social and
cultural opportunities
for income generation

31. Income Generation
Economic
•Employment and Training programmes
• Provides ‘manpower’
• Creates a ‘visible’ impact
• E.g. FSF (JCP) delivery – Luton Lee,
• or IRCAMP Social Enterprise – Rivers
Return with LWT, TCV, Blue Sky and GW
•Direct business engagement
• Riparian duties, compliance
• E.g. business support programme on
Weaver (linked to BID, funded by UU) –
includes breakers yards
• CSR – e.g. Vauxhall Motors, Luton
Airport, Aviva, M&S, Lowrie Hotel etc
• Links to new ERDF business
competitiveness programmes

32. Income Generation
Social
•Tapping into community ‘power’ to
accelerate volunteering, stewardship,
friends groups
• E.g. community / schools
engagement project on the Luton
Lee (70k TW, match from Luton
Airport)
• #Love my river project on the
weaver (EA catalyst £, UU
catchment wise & LA match)
• Volunteer group facilitation?? -
much more could be done!!!!
• Youth Engagement – active
process of engaging NCS primes,
link re: social impact projects –
includes social media projects

33. Income Generation
Cultural
•Heritage initiatives, via HLF – not a short term
opportunity but has potential
• E.g. Saltscape – a major HLF project,
matched to local money, to renovate
the ‘saltscape’ around the Gowrie
• Or, River Tees Rediscovered
• Or, Rivington Terraced Gardens, Wigan
(with Rivington Garden Trust)
• Or, Colne Valley Park (with Chiltern
Chalk Streams)
•Arts programmes
• E.g. carnival arts programme, Luton
• Landscape regeneration – landfill tax
grants Biffa major supporter

34. Income Generation
Others
•Health – NDPP, ‘Get Out, Get Active’, PHE
•Environment – protection, adaptation,
mitigation
•European Funding
•HS2
•Farmers
•Crowdfunding

35. Thank you
Any Questions?
Joe McIndoe
Joe.mcindoe@groundwork.org.uk

36. Ca
B A
tchment
ased pproach Partnerships for Action
Jack Spees
Ribble Catchment Partnership
Levering Additional Funds

37. Jack Spees
Trust Director
Ribble Rivers Trust
Aligning
Catchment
Objectives

38. Contents:
 The Ribble
 Ribble Life CaBA Partnership
 How we sought to align our
objectives
 Ecosystem Service Planning
 Prioritisation Tools
 Galvanising this into action – Ribble
Life Together

39. The Ribble…
 900 Square miles
 Mixture of land uses:
 Extensive Agriculture
 Intensive Agriculture
 Forestry
 Urban Areas
 Industry
 1.25 million people
 9 Borough Councils
 2 County Councils
 2 Unitary Authorities
 1 National Park
 1 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

40. The Ribble Life Partnership
 A huge number of stakeholders & interest groups…
 Created a stakeholder “exchange”
 Evolved into a partnership board
 A very inclusive governance development process
 Identified our partnerships key activities
 We shared data, evidence and objectives
 A range of different Objectives
 Conflicting
 “Unrelated”
 Complimentary
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5

41. How we sought to align
objectives
 Initially partners tried to translate WFD objectives to
there own
 The wrong way round
 Must map partners Objectives to WFD!
 But there are water objectives beyond WFD….
 Need to identify:
 What benefits?
 How to deliver?
 Who pays?
 To begin this process we used Ecosystem Service
Visualisation
 Partner objectives can be better aligned
 Can be more easily visualised
 Evidence of need
 Outcomes AND outputs more measurable

42. What benefits?
 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Wetlands and
Water Synthesis
H₂O

43. How to deliver?
 It may seem obvious
 But at a catchment scale?
 How to deliver multiple benefits?

44. Prioritising the works
 Scoping exercise
 Evidence and Data to identify every action…

45. Prioritising
 Still to many actions in to many places….

46. Where do you get the benefits?

47. Prioritised short list….

48. Who pays…..

49. Galvanising into action
 Having shortlisted our activities and locations
 Worked with partners to identify funding sources
 Submitted several EoI’s
 Positive feedback from the HLF
 8 months of furious work later
 £5million cash value project submitted
 £2million in-kind and volunteer in addition
 5 months after that
 SUCCESS – 18 month development phase
 Fingers crossed followed by 3.5 year delivery phase

50. The actions
 Wetlands
 Woodlands
 Fish passage
 Training
 Education
 Access
 Interpretation
 Data Sharing
 Monitoring
 Publicity
 Consultation
 Each will have direct input from the partners

51. What will success look like?
 Woodlands that improve water quality, habitat and climate change mitigation
 Wetlands that reduce flood risk, improve water quality and increase the quantity
of priority habitat
 Connectivity of riverine habitat by 20%
 The number of people accessing rivers by providing 15 circular walk routes
 The knowledge and awareness of the Ribble Catchment heritage
 The understanding of the benefits a healthy river provides
 The number of volunteers helping to improve the condition and management of
the catchment
 The number of people trained in catchment management activities
 The overall condition of the Ribble Catchment
 A lasting legacy of partnership working in the Ribble Catchment to sustain
improvements

52. What will REAL Success look
like?
 Demonstrable outcomes of catchment
improvements
 The REAL success will be the legacy
 Embedded way of co-delivering
 Set in plans going forward
 Greater investment from all in improving
catchments

53. Ca
B A
tchment
ased pproach Partnerships for Action
Concluding Remarks
Sarah Chare
Environment Agency

54. Ca
B A
tchment
ased pproach Partnerships for Action
Catchment Based Approach
Conference
Monday, 8th June 2015
Fishmongers’ Hall, London
CaBA15