Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Urban Water Management Workshop Manchester

715 views

Published on

Presentations from the Manchester Urban Water Management Workshop - March 15th 2016

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

Urban Water Management Workshop Manchester

  1. 1. Urban  Water  Management  Workshop   March  15th  2016   The  Mechanics  Ins;tute,  Manchester,  M1  6DD          
  2. 2. Policy, Legislation and Governance Peter Bide peterbide@aol.com
  3. 3. The bigger picture in water management Ø  Why planning for water matters Ø  How policy and plans join up Ø  Who is involved Ø  Opportunities to get multiple benefits through partnerships and innovative approaches
  4. 4. Planning for water: why does it matter? Too much, or too little water is bad for business, the economy and society: Ø  lost production and sales Ø  disrupted transport Ø  waste of resources Ø  poor quality environment and social problems Good planning and urban design Ø  reduces flooding Ø  increases water resilience Ø  improves water quality Ø  creates more liveable places  
  5. 5. How integrated water management works in practice Source:  WWT  and  RSPB  -­‐  Sustainable  Drainage  Systems,  Maximising  the  Poten?al  for  People  and  Wildlife,    A  guide  for  Local  Authori?es  and  Developers    
  6. 6. How policy and plans join up Local  Plans   Surface  Water   Management   Plans   Water  Resource   Management   Plans   River  Basin   Management   Plans   NPPF   WFD   FWMA   Water   Acts  
  7. 7. How it works in practice
  8. 8. Who’s  involved?   Environment   Agency   Lead  Local  Flood   Authori@es   Local  Planning   Authori@es   Water  and   Sewerage   Companies   Highway   Authori@es   Local  wildlife  and   conserva@on   groups   Local   Communi@es   Catchment   partnerships   Natural     England   Farmers  and   land  managers   Local   Enterprise   Partnerships   Local  businesses   and  developers  
  9. 9. Understand   issues   Develop   collabora?on   Build   capacity   Catchment   partnership   L P A   IDB   LLFA   N E   Business   BeMer   Water   quality   Sustainable   drainage   Water   efficiency   Local     environment   Biodiversity   How  the  Catchment  –based  approach  works:   Partnerships,  process  and  outcomes   Sustainable   development  
  10. 10. Ø  Reduce flood risk Ø  Improve and regenerate urban areas Ø  Enhance biodiversity Ø  Improve water availability and quality Ø  Enable new housing Ø  Facilitate business growth   Opportunities from integrating water management Mul@ple  benefits!  
  11. 11. Mul@ple  benefits   Partnership working Flood risk managed & reduced Better access and green space urban areas regenerated Housing and business growth More effective use of resources With good partnerships you can have it all! Biodiversity enhanced Improved water quality
  12. 12. Funding:  geLng  more  for  less  
  13. 13. The risks from inaction: Ø  Poorly planned development reducing water and environmental quality and increasing flood risk Ø  Water supply and waste water disposal constraints on development Ø  Missed opportunities for cost-saving Ø  Poorer quality urban environments Urban water management is important The benefits of getting it right: Ø  Regenerated towns and cities Ø  Enhanced biodiversity Ø  Improved water availability and quality Ø  More green space Ø  Improved public realm and people’s access to it Ø  Enabling new housing Ø  Facilitating business growth  
  14. 14. New South Quarter and Wandle Park Croydon
  15. 15. http://www.ciwem.org/planningadvice
  16. 16. LOCAL ACTION PROJECT Leicester | Manchester | Thames Estuary | Newton Abbot
  17. 17. LOCALACTIONPROJECT Barriers to SuDS/GI delivery & evidence gaps. CaBA Urban Workshop – Birmingham, Oct 2015
  18. 18. LOCAL ACTION PROJECT STRATEGIC DATA, EVIDENCE + INFORMATION Present robust evidence in a clear way to help build consensus,facilitate local decision-making & secure funding VALUINGTHE BENEFITS FROM NATURAL CAPITAL Develop a clear understanding of the social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits provided by natural capital in urban landscapes and estimating potential improvements LOCAL CHOICES, PRIORITIES + AMBITIONS Talk to the local community and civil society groups to discover their future vision and ambition for where they live FUNDING + RESOURCES FOR ACTION Support the formation of effective stakeholder-led partnerships by increasing engagement, mobilising local delivery organisations and tapping into funding sources Working with local communities to enhance the value of natural capital in our towns, cities and other urban spaces to improve people’s lives, the environment & economic prosperity… LOCALACTIONPROJECT
  19. 19. LOCAL COMMUNITY Action Practical implementation of environmental measures www Place making GOVERNMENT BODIES Enabling Conditions LOCALACTIONPROJECT
  20. 20. TARGETED STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANDATE POLICY/LEGISLATION MONETISED? ECONOMIC SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS NATURAL CAPITAL FUNCTION VALUE MULTI-FUNCTIONS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NATURAL ASSETS HABITATSFUNCTIONAL AREAS SuDSOPEN SPACES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SYNERGIES PROTECT CONSERVE MANAGE ENHANCE NO DETERIORATION STOCK ACTION INTERVENTIONS DELIVER FUNDING TOOLBOX OPPORTUNITY NEED PRIORITIES DRIVERS STATUTORY AMBITION VISION BUY-IN HUMAN IMPACTS HIGH DEMAND  FUNCTION SUITABILITY PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY SYNERGY DESIGN MEASURES OPTIONEERING  PROVISION POLICY CAPABILITY
  21. 21. TARGETED STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANDATE POLICY/LEGISLATION MONETISED? ECONOMIC SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS NATURAL CAPITAL FUNCTION VALUE MULTI-FUNCTIONS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NATURAL ASSETS HABITATSFUNCTIONAL AREAS SuDSOPEN SPACES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SYNERGIES PROTECT CONSERVE MANAGE ENHANCE NO DETERIORATION STOCK ACTION INTERVENTIONS DELIVER FUNDING TOOLBOX OPPORTUNITY NEED PRIORITIES DRIVERS STATUTORY AMBITION VISION BUY-IN HUMAN IMPACTS HIGH DEMAND  FUNCTION SUITABILITY PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY SYNERGY DESIGN MEASURES OPTIONEERING  PROVISION POLICY CAPABILITY
  22. 22. POLICY/LEGISLATION PROTECT CONSERVE MANAGE ENHANCE NO DETERIORATION STOCK TARGETED STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANDATE ACTION INTERVENTIONS DELIVER FUNDING TOOLBOX OPPORTUNITY NEED PRIORITIES DRIVERS STATUTORY AMBITION VISION BUY-IN HUMAN IMPACTS HIGH DEMAND  FUNCTION SUITABILITY PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY SYNERGY DESIGN MEASURES OPTIONEERING  PROVISION POLICY CAPABILITY MONETISED? ECONOMIC SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS NATURAL CAPITAL FUNCTION VALUE MULTI-FUNCTIONS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NATURAL ASSETS HABITATSFUNCTIONAL AREAS SuDSOPEN SPACES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SYNERGIES
  23. 23. LOCALACTIONPROJECT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Area(km²) Natural Environment Domestic Garden Natural Surface Inland Water Urban Other CURRENT ASSETS Land-cover Composition Green Wedges These areas of land offer a space for recreation and nature conservation, providing a “green lung into urban areas”. They have been included in the planning policy for Leicester and Leicestershire for many years. River Sence This is the longest tributary of the River Soar at around ~28km in length. This map shows the main areas of natural infrastructure across Leicester and the surrounding wards. There is a diverse collection of natural habitats and green/blue spaces across the area; including the wetlands and riverine habitats to the north of the city, around Watermead, and species-rich grassland to the south at Aylestone Meadows Local Nature Reserve.
  24. 24. LOCALACTIONPROJECT CURRENT ASSETS…continued These maps illustrate the high level of detail that is available for mapping green and blue infrastructure, in Leicester. Data is mapped for two example wards; Rushey Mead Ward and a detailed section of Abbey Park and the surrounding area in AbbeyWard. Due to the detailed mapping and high resolution datasets provided by Leicester City Council, we are able to view features such as outdoor sports areas, play areas and street trees. Rushey Mead Ward Abbey Park in Abbey Ward NATURAL CAPITAL
  25. 25. TARGETED STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANDATE POLICY/LEGISLATION MONETISED? ECONOMIC SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS NATURAL CAPITAL FUNCTION VALUE MULTI-FUNCTIONS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NATURAL ASSETS HABITATSFUNCTIONAL AREAS SuDSOPEN SPACES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SYNERGIES PROTECT CONSERVE MANAGE ENHANCE NO DETERIORATION STOCK ACTION INTERVENTIONS DELIVER FUNDING TOOLBOX OPPORTUNITY NEED PRIORITIES DRIVERS STATUTORY AMBITION VISION BUY-IN HUMAN IMPACTS HIGH DEMAND  FUNCTION SUITABILITY PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY SYNERGY DESIGN MEASURES OPTIONEERING  PROVISION POLICY CAPABILITY
  26. 26. LOCALACTIONPROJECT BENEFITS ASSESSMENT To target and implement interventions that enhance natural capital effectively have developed a series of metrics that assess the current benefits being experienced by people and the environment. Each metric is a measure with the potential to be enhanced through natural solutions. Access to Green Space Percentage of people that meet the criteria outlined in Natural England’s ANGSt (Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard). Air Quality (PM10) Mean concentration of PM10 modelled for 2016, derived from background maps from the UK-AIR data archive. Flood Risk (Rivers and Sea) Number of buildings that have a greater than 1 in 100 year chance of flooding from rivers and/or sea. WFD Ecological Status The 2014 Water Framework Directive ecological status for the surrounding river waterbody catchment. Average House Price Mean price for a two-bedroom house in December 2015. Flood Damage Cost (Rivers and Sea) Estimated costs incurred due to flood damage from rivers and sea, based on figures used in the EA National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA). Aesthetic value of landscape Number of nature-related photos taken in the area that have been uploaded to Flickr and tagged accordingly. Cultural Activity Number of recreational facilities per 1000 people, including places such as allotments, sports clubs. Flood Risk (Surface Water) Number of buildings that have a greater than 1 in 100 year chance of flooding from surface water. Climate Regulation Percentage of land area that is carbon /GHG-sequestering habitats of woodland, grassland, wetland or scrub. Priority Habitat Percentage of ward area that is described as a priority habitat in Natural England’s Priority Habitats Inventory. BENEFITS • Ward-scale analysis • Metrics represent range of values in Leicester • White spaces represent opportunity for improvement Low Flows The water availability value of river waterbody catchments, according to the EA’s Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS).
  27. 27. LOCALACTIONPROJECT BENEFITS SUMMARY 13. Beaumont Leys Pop – 16,480 37. Abbey Pop – 14,926 6. Western Park Pop – 10,609 8. Fosse Pop – 13,072 16. New Parks Pop – 17,128 21. Westcotes Pop – 11,644 17. Freemen Pop – 10,949 44. Castle Pop – 22,901 12. Charnwood Pop – 13,291 22. Coleman Pop – 14,669 23. Belgrave Pop – 11,558 35. Spinney Hills Pop – 25,571 43. Stoneygate Pop – 20,390 45. Latimer Pop – 12,457
  28. 28. TARGETED ACTION INTERVENTIONS DELIVER FUNDING TOOLBOX OPPORTUNITY BUY-IN SUITABILITY PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY SYNERGY DESIGN MEASURES OPTIONEERINGCAPABILITY STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANDATE POLICY/LEGISLATION MONETISED? ECONOMIC SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS NATURAL CAPITAL FUNCTION VALUE MULTI-FUNCTIONS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NATURAL ASSETS HABITATSFUNCTIONAL AREAS SuDSOPEN SPACES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SYNERGIES PROTECT CONSERVE MANAGE ENHANCE NO DETERIORATION STOCK NEED PRIORITIES DRIVERS STATUTORY AMBITION VISION HUMAN IMPACTS HIGH DEMAND  FUNCTION  PROVISION POLICY
  29. 29. LOCALACTIONPROJECT OPPORTUNITY AREAS The final step of this assessment is to identify key areas for improvement and investigate areas of priority, opportunity and feasibility for implementing measures at these sites. 1. Key areas of opportunity across Leicester, such as potential development sites (including regeneration and brownfield sites) and proposed wildlife sites. Potential Sites for Nature Potential for expanding local sites for nature in Leicester. There are a number of proposed Local Nature Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites, which if designed effectively could produce a number of benefits for the wider area. Ashton Green Abbey Meadows Waterside Regeneration
  30. 30. LOCALACTIONPROJECT TARGET AREA IDENTIFICATION Landscape Priority Area 1 LowerWillowbrookWards 45. Latimer - Very poor air quality - High flood risk from rivers and sea - Very high surface water flood risk (and damage costs) - Low carbon storage - Low property values 12. Charnwood - Very poor air quality - Very high flood risk from rivers and sea - Very high surface water flood risk (and damage costs) - Low provision of cultural activity resources - Very low habitat provision and low carbon storage - Very low property values 35. Spinney Hills - Very poor air quality - High flood risk from rivers and sea - Very high surface water flood risk (and damage costs) - Low provision of cultural activity resources - Low carbon storage - Low property values 22. Coleman - Low access to green space and very poor air quality - Very high flood risk from rivers and sea and surface water, as well as very high predicted costs of damages - Low provision of cultural activity resources - Low carbon storage - Very low property values 2. Using the information gathered from the previous sections, we are able to identify wards that could benefit the most from increased or improved environmental infrastructure and also what types of interventions are appropriate to meet those needs.
  31. 31. LOCALACTIONPROJECT TARGET AREA IDENTIFICATION Landscape Priority Area 1 LowerWillowbrookWards 3. Perform high resolution hydrological and suitability analyses to identify candidate sites for specific interventions – these sites can then be ‘worked-up’ with resource/funding sought, community consultation,optioneering, design and delivery.
  32. 32. TARGETED ACTION INTERVENTIONS DELIVER FUNDING TOOLBOX OPPORTUNITY BUY-IN SUITABILITY PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY SYNERGY DESIGN MEASURES OPTIONEERINGCAPABILITY STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANDATE POLICY/LEGISLATION MONETISED? ECONOMIC SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS NATURAL CAPITAL FUNCTION VALUE MULTI-FUNCTIONS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NATURAL ASSETS HABITATSFUNCTIONAL AREAS SuDSOPEN SPACES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SYNERGIES PROTECT CONSERVE MANAGE ENHANCE NO DETERIORATION STOCK NEED PRIORITIES DRIVERS STATUTORY AMBITION VISION HUMAN IMPACTS HIGH DEMAND  FUNCTION  PROVISION POLICY
  33. 33. LOCALACTIONPROJECT URBAN TOOLBOX Splits into FOUR broad approaches - • Restoration / regeneration of urban environments • GI or SuDS in new development • Retrofit or greening actions • Increased functionality – e.g. increased amenity or access • For each intervention we have developed factsheets including cost and benefits info AND include opportunity/feasibility criteria to facilitate mapping/scenario development
  34. 34. LOCALACTIONPROJECT Rain Gardens are usually small vegetated depressions in the ground created mainly in residential areas to take surface water run-off from roofs and hard surfaces. RAIN GARDEN Infiltration, bio-retention, soakaways + They but can vary significantly in size and are sometimes also called ‘bio-retention cells’ + Aid infiltration by slowing water down and increasing soil permeability + Reducing runoff through root uptake of water and transpiration + Can act to remove pollutants from water – especially if wetland areas are incorporated into the design + Aesthetically pleasing and can improve QoL and landscape value IMPLEMENTATION Rain gardens mimic the natural water retention of undeveloped land and reduce the volume of water entering drains so they need to be hydrologically connected Costs: £20-270+/m2 dependent on size and context. Due to high variability of design and situation.£ £ £ Maintenance: low dependent on context but mainly litter/sediment removal. Plants need to endure waterlogged as well as dry conditions. £ £ £  Stress levels  Wellbeing  Exposure to nature  Outdoor Learning x  Allergy risk Aesthetic quality can degrade if not managedFeasibility: Can be used for retrofit in residential, industrial or urban areas. Hydrological connectivity must exist or be created
  35. 35. LOCALACTIONPROJECT RAIN GARDEN Infiltration, bio-retention, soakaways Stakeholder dialogue Partnership working Benefits/value assessment CASESTUDIES Strategic targeting Practical delivery of measures The Rain Garden Guide This guide is intended to help the homeowner or property manager to create a simple rain garden within their own property. www.raingardens.info/the-rain-garden-guide Rain garden: design, construction and maintenance recommendations based on a review of existing systems N. Somes, M. Potter, Joe Crosby and M Pfitzner. In order to better understand factors that contribute to the successful implementation of street scale Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) assessments were undertaken at 22 sites across Melbourne. www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/ircsa/pdf/13th/Somes.pdf Evaluating rain gardens as a method to reduce the impact of sewer overflows in sources of drinking water Autixier L, Mailhot A, Bolduc S, Madoux-Humery AS, Galarneau M, Prévost M, Dorner S. Science of the Total Environment (2014) 499:238-47 Rain gardens were evaluated for their reduction of volumes of water entering the drainage network and of CSOs. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25192930 SuDS for Schools - The SuDS for Schools project is working with ten schools in the Pymmes Brook catchment in North London to design and build Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in the school grounds. www.sudsforschools.wwt.org.uk/ Ashby Grove residential retrofit rain garden, London The Ashby Grove rain garden retrofit is designed to remove roof water from a social housing block in Islington. The aim is to disconnect one of the roof downpipes and allow water to flow directly into a newly designed rain garden. tinyurl.com/zpowlef Islington Raingarden The Ashby Grove raingarden in Islington was designed and constructed as a practical example of what can be done in small landscape spaces as suggested in the Islington SuDS Design Guide. robertbrayassociates.co.uk/projects/islington-raingarden Strutts Centre Rain Garden, Belper Trent Rivers Trust have just completed this National Demonstration Sustainable Drainage scheme (SuDS) designed by national expert Bob Bray, on a grade II listed building. www.trentriverstrust.org/site/Rain-Gardens
  36. 36. LOCALACTIONPROJECT Trees can perform a number of functions that in turn provide a number of different benefits to people in urban landscapes - TREES Street trees, tree pits, urban forest + Improving air quality by trapping pollutants + Intercepting rainfall to slow the rate of water reaching the ground + Increasing infiltration by creating permeable surfaces + Reducing runoff through root uptake of water and transpiration + Trees are also aesthetically pleasing natural features in an urban landscape and thus provide many less tangible benefits that improve people’s quality of life, health and wellbeing IMPLEMENTATION Trees are very versatile and can be used in a variety of situations. The benefits produced depend on their size, species, location and style of delivery. Costs per singular tree: £100-400 (including planting and initial maintenance)£ £ £ Maintenance: mainly pruning (as part of landscape management)£ £ £  stress levels  exercise frequency  New-born health  exercise frequency  New-born health Property damage: roots, litter, shading x  allergy risk Can block views Feasibility: can be planted in pavements large enough to receive them. Cab planted on existing GI or in new developments
  37. 37. LOCALACTIONPROJECT TREES Street trees, tree pits, urban forest Stakeholder dialogue Partnership working Benefits/value assessment CASESTUDIES Strategic targeting Practical delivery of measures Urban Forest Effects Model (UFORE) & i-Tree Eco The Urban Forest Effects Model (UFORE) is a science-based, peer- reviewed computer model designed to assess and quantify urban forest ecosystem services, based on field data inputs and external datasets (e.g. weather and pollution). It was adapted for inclusion with the i-Tree software suite from the USDA Forest Service, and was subsequently renamed as i-Tree Eco. www.itreetools.org Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban areas. Alcock I, White MP, Wheeler BW, Fleming LE, Depledge MH. Environmental Science & Technology (2014) 21; 48 (2):1247-55. Moving to greener urban areas was associated with sustained mental health improvements, suggesting that environmental policies to increase urban green space may have sustainable public health benefits. Torbay's Urban Forest The study (the first of its kind in the UK) used the i-Tree Eco model (developed by the US Forest Service, and based on peer reviewed research) to quantify the structure, and some of the major environmental benefits delivered by Torbay’s trees. www.torbay.gov.uk/tuf.pdfitreetools.org StreetTree London Street Tree is a non-profit making company founded on the belief that trees should form an integral part of the urban landscape. Our aim is to increase London's tree stock, working with Local Authorities, Fund-holders, and business partners, to promote street trees and the many benefits they bring. www.streettree.org Red Rose Forest – Green Streets Case Studies Red Rose Forest's Green Streets team is dedicated to making our towns and cities greener and more attractive places to live, work and invest. They plant street trees, deliver bespoke street greening projects, create places to grow food, greenspace improvement, plant community woodlands and orchards, build green roofs and improve school grounds. tinyurl.com/j3vhpxm Wirral StreetTrees Programme A tree planting programme that is helping to transform Wirral into a thriving economic hub. By April this year over 600 trees across 8km will have been planted in streets and green spaces, as part of a three- year programme to link residential areas to places of employment and training. tinyurl.com/jn5ggpd
  38. 38. TARGETED ACTION INTERVENTIONS DELIVER FUNDING TOOLBOX OPPORTUNITY BUY-IN SUITABILITY PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY SYNERGY DESIGN MEASURES OPTIONEERINGCAPABILITY STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANDATE POLICY/LEGISLATION MONETISED? ECONOMIC SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS NATURAL CAPITAL FUNCTION VALUE MULTI-FUNCTIONS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NATURAL ASSETS HABITATSFUNCTIONAL AREAS SuDSOPEN SPACES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SYNERGIES PROTECT CONSERVE MANAGE ENHANCE NO DETERIORATION STOCK NEED PRIORITIES DRIVERS STATUTORY AMBITION VISION HUMAN IMPACTS HIGH DEMAND  FUNCTION  PROVISION POLICY
  39. 39. LOCALACTIONPROJECT
  40. 40. LOCALACTIONPROJECT
  41. 41. LOCALACTIONPROJECT
  42. 42. LOCALACTIONPROJECT
  43. 43. LOCAL ACTION PROJECT Leicester | Manchester | Thames Estuary | Newton Abbot
  44. 44. Green  Infrastructure  for  Water  –     River  Irwell  Pilot  Study  
  45. 45. •  Growing  body  of  evidence  of  effec<veness  of  GI  in  tackling   problems  with  water  environment.   •  Builds  on  work  undertaken  over  previous  years  by  RRF,  EA   and  UoM  to  tackle  Urban  Diffuse  Pollu<on.   •  Builds  also  on  Urban  Catchment  Forestry  ideas.   •  Ini<ally  funded  by  EA  (with  some  addi<onal  support  from  EU).   •  Developed  with  input  from  colleagues  in  EA  and  CaBA  .   •  Further  sessions  planned  with  EA  and  Catchment  Partnership   to  iden<fy  ways  to  strengthen  model  and  take  forward.   Background  
  46. 46. •  There  has  been  a  focus  on  rural  problems  and   opportuni<es  (Forest  Research).   •  Recent  work  on  Urban  Diffuse  Pollu<on  has   concentrated  on  loca<ons  of  greatest  need,  and  been   broad  in  scale.   But  this  model:   •  Aims  to  highlight  loca<ons  of  genuine  opportunity,  at   catchment  scale.   •  Guide  design/selec<on  of  GI  interven<ons.   •  Focus  on  both  issues  of  quality  and  quan<ty.   •  Guide  cost  effec<ve  deployment  of  GI.   Purpose  
  47. 47. Evidence  of  the  Problem  
  48. 48.     Approach   Issues  of  water   management   and/or  quality   Likely  pathways   from  source  to   receptor     (ie  watercourse   or  flood  zone)   Opportuni0es   for  GI  to   disrupt   pathway  
  49. 49. Purpose  
  50. 50. •  ccc   Overlay  Model  
  51. 51. •  ccc  
  52. 52. •  ccc   Purpose  
  53. 53. •  ccc   Purpose  
  54. 54. •  ccc   Purpose  
  55. 55. •  ccc   Purpose  
  56. 56. •  ccc   Purpose  
  57. 57. •  ccc   Purpose  
  58. 58. On  the  ground:  
  59. 59. •  Guidance  on  loca<on:   –  To  highlight  loca<ons  with  highest  co-­‐incidence  of  opportuni<es  and  to   iden<fy  the  range  of  projects/interven<ons  that  would  be  most  appropriate   in  that  loca<on.   –  To  highlight  loca<ons  where  a  specific  given  project  should  be  delivered  to   have  greatest  impact.   •  To  provide  addi<onal  evidence  of  need,  to  support  a  given  specific   project.   •  Guidance  on  improving  the  design  of  a  given  project  in  order  to   elicit  maximum  mul<ple  benefits  (i.e.  designing  a  street  tree   scheme  to  integrate  with  road  drainage  to  protect  a  local   watercourse).   How  the  Model  Can  be  Used  
  60. 60. •  Weigh0ng  -­‐  Each  dataset  in  the  model  has  been  weighted   equally  when  overlaid.   •  Spa0al  priori0sa0on  -­‐  Further  spa<al  priori<sa<on  would   allow  the  model  to  beZer  indicate  where  the  greatest  impact   could  be  achieved  e.g.  IntermiZent  Discharges.   •  Other  Assump0ons  –  Highways  drains,  CSW,  deliverability   •  Addi0onal  refinement  –  Filtering  out  residen<al  streets   lacking  space  for  trees?  Filtering  out  less  busy  roads?   Refinement  
  61. 61. •  Tackling  issues  of  quan<ty  will  have  beneficial  impact  on   quality.   •  Highlights  loca<ons  with  the  greatest  scope  for  GI   interven<ons.   •  Doesn’t  replace  need  for  site  survey,  but  directs  effort  at   catchment  scale.   •  Being  used  by  the  EA  and  Catchment  Partnership  to   inform  projects  that  address  UDP.     In  Summary  
  62. 62. -SuDS- urban spaces for water, wildlife and people                                  Andy  Graham  –  Head  of  Community  Working  Wetlands  
  63. 63. They  work...   ATTENUATION  
  64. 64. SuDS  for  Schools   10  schools  –  one  catchment     2000+  students  engaged     Knowledge,  skills  and  confidence     Cleaner  stream,  new  habitats     Healthy,  connected  people     InspiraIonal  places       Transformed  learning  –  not  just  the  students            
  65. 65. “Love  the  garden.  The  children  sit  at   the  benches  by  the  garden  every   break  and  lunch8me”   Susi  Earnshaw  
  66. 66. Partnership,  parIcipaIon  and  legacy  
  67. 67. What  a  wonderful  day  we  had!  It  exceeded  all  our   expecta8ons.  Thank  you  so  much  for  everything.   Please  pass  on  our  thanks  to  all  your  colleagues   who  made  it  such  a  successful  event.     Mr  Westmore,  AcIng  Head  Teacher   SuDS  are  now  well  and  truly    in  the   Hollickwood  consciousness,  and  also  of  all   our  community  guests,  (I  see    that  all  the   parents'  Facebook  pages  are  going  crazy   tonight  with  admiring    comments  about   our  SuDS!).     Linden  Groves,  Parent    &  Gardening   CommiQee    
  68. 68. -­‐Transforming  the  Salthill  catchment  in  Slough-­‐   mulIple  benefits  –  broader  support    Health  and  well-­‐being  strategies    Reduced  (fear  of)  crime    Engagement  -­‐  community  cohesion    Skills,  knowledge  –  jobs    Cleaner  streams  (WFD)    Reduced  flood  risk  (SWMP)    CC  adaptaIon    Wetlands  and  wildlife  (GI)    
  69. 69. Prince  of  Wales  community  wetland          Urban  regeneraIon  –  blue/green   infrastructure      2ha  of  new  urban  wetlands      SuDS  to  clean  road-­‐run-­‐off      Community  co-­‐design  and  management      Skills,  training,  empowerment,  civic  pride  
  70. 70. •  Engage  early     •  Build  broad  support  -­‐  who  benefits?   •  CollaboraIve  design   •  Be  prepared  to  adapt   •  Community  management   •  Planners  and  permissions     hQp://www.wwt.org.uk/uploads/documents/1400927422_   Sustainabledrainagesystemsguide.pdf  
  71. 71. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=InZKJ6JlCF4
  72. 72. Support for SuDS Paul Shaffer, CIRIA Elvetham  Heath,  Hampshire  
  73. 73. §  Founded 1960 §  Not for profit §  Independent / collaborative approach §  Member-based, around 500 corporate members §  Focus on performance improvement §  Cross sector / inter disciplinary CIRIA?
  74. 74. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org Where do we start §  The context §  The team §  Engagement §  Funding
  75. 75. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org The context §  New build or retrofit §  Drivers §  Opportunities and constraints §  The delivery process
  76. 76. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org The team §  The role of champions §  Disciplines •  Engineers •  Landscape architects •  Urban designers •  Communication §  Partners §  The community
  77. 77. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org Who’s doing what? §  Local authorities •  Planning •  Flood risk managers §  Developers §  Sewerage undertakers §  River/Wildlife trusts §  Third Sector
  78. 78. Where to go for information   Lamb  Drove,  Cambridgeshire  
  79. 79. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org Awareness – susdrain §  Website & events §  Signposts guidance §  50+ case studies §  100+ videos §  50+ presentations §  Summarised guidance §  Blog §  Animation & infographic
  80. 80. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org §  Comprehensive update/re-write §  36 chapters •  Philosophy & approach •  Applying the approach •  Technical detail •  Supporting guidance §  Key themes covering •  Delivery of four design objectives •  Overcoming site challenges •  Delivering SuDS in urban areas •  Integration §  Free download The SuDS Manual
  81. 81. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org Retrofitting §  Two approaches •  Strategic •  Nibbling §  Underpinned by a framework §  Dependencies •  Urban design •  Engagement •  Business models §  Free download
  82. 82. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org Engagement §  Overview of engagement §  Principles §  Framework •  Opportunities •  Identifying stakeholders •  Preparing a plan •  Deliver and monitor §  Skills §  Techniques §  Free downloads
  83. 83. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org §  Approach to assessing benefits §  Support practitioners to value the quantity and monetary benefit §  Looking at monetising 14 benefits §  Compare drainage options §  Support discussions and funding partnerships §  Free download Benefits of SuDS Tool
  84. 84. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org Confidence §  Good to talk §  Capacity building §  Training •  Intro to SuDS •  SuDS design •  SuDS and planning §  Organisations •  CIRIA •  CABA •  Consultancies
  85. 85. www.ciria.org | www.susdrain.org Thank you… Susdrain: www.susdrain.org CABA: www.catchmentbasedapproach.org Livingroofs: www.livingroofs.org SUDSNET: sudsnet.abertay.ac.uk LinkedIn Group – Sustainable Drainage Systems Twitter - @sudsulike paul.shaffer@ciria.org
  86. 86. Engaging with Local Authorities CaBA Workshop 15th March 2016
  87. 87. a planners perspective of balance Climate change Environmental issues Localism Today’s pressures Viability of town centres Public interest Economic recession Meeting housing needs Long term strategies Brownfield development Retail ‘market forces’ Individual interest
  88. 88. Issues
  89. 89. Water Quality Indicators
  90. 90. Processes ENGAGE AGREE FORMALISE
  91. 91. Establish principles - engage WORKS IN THE RIVER CHANNEL STAGE ONE ESTABLISH PRINCIPLES E S T A B L I S H PUSH FOR LARGE SCALE IMPROVEMENTS LAND AND WATER CONSIDERED TOGETHER ONGOING MAINTENANCE WHO? HOW? OPEN UP RIVER CHANNELS PUBLIC ACCESS SMALL SCALE WORKS ONLY POSSIBLE SPACE OR FLOOD RISK RESTRICTIONS LIMIT COSTS TO COUNCIL
  92. 92. Initial discussions - agree EXPECTATIONS COSTS FED INTO VIABILITY RELATIONSHIPS WITH EA - CONSISTENCY STAGE TWO INITIAL DISCUSSION PRE APPLICATION C O N S I D E R A T I O N S IMPORTANCE OF THE RIVER POLICY CONTEXT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ADDRESS THE RIVER LOCAL POLICY? DISCUSSION WITH USER GROUPS
  93. 93. Planning application - formalise STAGE THREE PLANNING APPLICATION S U B M I T T E D I N F O R M A T I O N RIVER IMPACT STUDY DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT BIODIVERSITY SURVEY AND REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPE SCHEME OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT DAYLIGHT/SUNLIGHT ASSESSMENT
  94. 94. Ladywell Fields Before
  95. 95. Example – Lewisham Gateway
  96. 96. Catchment  Partnerships  –  the   benefits  of  collabora5ve  working   Rob  Collins   The  Rivers  Trust   rob@theriverstrust.org     h?p://waterlife.org.uk        
  97. 97. www.catchmentbasedapproach.org  
  98. 98. CaBA  Evalua5on   •  Leveraged  funding  4:1  rela5ve  to  ini5al  Defra  investment   •  Increased  scale,  depth  and  integra5on  of  engagement   across  water  management  issues   •  More  cost  effec5ve  delivery   •  Captures  local  knowledge  and  exper5se;  greater   community  engagement   •  Driving  a  more  holis5c  and  integrated  approach   •  Mul5ple  benefits  realised  through  collabora5ve  working      
  99. 99. Mul5ple  Benefits   •  Flood  Risk  Management   •  Improved  Water  Quality  and  Quan5ty   •  Climate  Resilience   •  Biodiversity   •  Green  (&  Blue)  Spaces   •  Community  Health  and  Well-­‐being   •  Business  Growth   •  Urban  re-­‐genera5on  
  100. 100. Urban Pollution •  Misconnections;  CaBA  Partnerships,  LA’s  &  Water  Companies   •  Diffuse  Urban  Runoff   •  Category  3  Pollution  Monitoring   •  Community  Engagement  and  Awareness  Raising  
  101. 101. www.catchmentbasedapproach.org/volunteer-­‐monitoring  
  102. 102. CaBA Partnerships provide an ideal vehicle to mobilise debate between flood threatened communities and those organisations (& individuals) able to enact mitigation action Influence  of  the  wider  catchment  upon     towns  and  ci5es  
  103. 103. CaBA  Data  Package  
  104. 104. A  partnership  approach;     Soar  Catchment  Partnership,  City  Council,  EA,  LEP     Flood  Risk  Management  in  the  Soar     underpinned  by  data  and  evidence  
  105. 105. Catchment  Partnerships  –  the   benefits  of  collabora5ve  working   Rob  Collins   The  Rivers  Trust   rob@theriverstrust.org  
  106. 106. 1.            What  are  the  opportuni5es  you  see  to  delivering   sustainable  and  collabora5ve  urban  water   management  and  how  can  any  barriers  be  overcome?     2.            What  key  elements  of  urban  water  management   should  be  captured  in  local  plans  and  policies?     3.            How  can  those  plans/polices  be  influenced  
  107. 107. The Sankey Framework- setting water management into a wider context Rick Rogers Environmental Planning St Helens Council
  108. 108. Sankey Valley Project • 15 mile corridor • Integrated approach across - Economy, Visitor Economy; - Heritage; - Biodiversity; - Hydrology; - Health; - Access to Employment; - Recreation Vision: “Create and manage a 15-mile long green corridor from Spike Island, Widnes, through Warrington, to Carr Mill Dam, St Helens which provides outdoor recreation opportunities for the Mid- Mersey Region. Benefiting the visitor economy, the corridor is important for recreation, heritage, health and wellbeing, water management and wildlife”.
  109. 109. Project Aims • To safeguard, enrich and promote the Cultural Heritage of the Sankey Valley and the Sankey Canal Corridor; • To develop a functioning hydrological catchment which minimises the frequency and intensity of flooding within the Sankey Catchment, assists in improving the quality of the water environment and maximises the water resource for recreational and biodiversity needs; • To improve the quality of the valley as a functioning ecological corridor through appropriate habitat management and creation; • To increase the connectivity of the valley for sustainable commuting and recreational purposes; • To maximise the potential of the Sankey Valley as a visitor destination and economic asset; • To promote the use of the Sankey Valley for health and wellbeing.
  110. 110. Catchment Framework Plan(s) Project Portfolio development Ideas, Issues and Opportunities Hydrology Biodiversity Heritage Health Economy Access Recreation Strategic • What? Project Vision, aim, objective • Why? Policy review • Where? Sankey Valley > Needs Assessment Issues / Themes • Who Benefits? – audience? • How? Partnership : St Helens BC, Warrington BC , Halton BC, Environment Agency, Healthy Waterways Trust, Groundwork , Mersey Forest, Wildlife Trusts, Natural England , Canal River Trust, SCARS, LFAU, Canal and Rivers Trust, United Utilities, Natural England, RSPB, MEAS, Merseyside Archaeological Society, Merseyside Industrial Archeology Society
  111. 111. Aim: To develop a functioning hydrological catchment which minimises the frequency and intensity of flooding within the Sankey catchment , assists in improving water quality and maximises the resource for recreation and biodiversity Water quality Water & Land Management Stakeholder Workshop 1 • Identifying Issues • Current activities • Opportunities • Knowledge gaps A N A L Y S I s Stakeholder Workshop 2 • Project Ideas • Synergies Stage 1 Projects Development of Project Portfolio ( Co-ordination Group) Hydrology Process
  112. 112. Sankey Catchment Plan Surface Water Management Plans EA Programmes UU AMP ProgrammesHLF Landscape Partnership Bid Planning Policy / Development Control Delivery Mechanisms
  113. 113. Catchment covers approx. 179 km2 with 126km of main river
  114. 114. Broad Zones Slow and Filter Zone e.g. Leaky dams, grass margins to channels, off-line storage Urban Intervention Zone e.g. daylight culverts, create wet woodlands, swales, embankments, channel modification, mine water amelioration through reedbeds Discharge Zone e.g. Create new channel between Sankey Brook and lower reaches of Sankey canal
  115. 115. Stanley Bank Natural Flood Management Measures
  116. 116. Examples of multi-functional benefits : Debris Dams at Stanley Bank • Slowing flow on Stanley Brook; • Built using Employment Training scheme via Groundwork; • Providing water quality improvements; • Improving the condition of a SSSI * Natural Solutions to Flooding KTP project
  117. 117. Engine Lock Enhancement – Broad Oak St Helens • Water management; • Access Improvement; • Local Wildlife Site enhancement –de-silting a wetland. • Heritage enhancement – rediscovering a lost canal lock;
  118. 118. Catchment approach to flood risk management Derek Antrobus Chair, North West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee
  119. 119. NW RFCC - 2030 Vision •  Need for catchment wide approach to water management •  Need for greater impetus on ‘Slow The Flow’ •  Need to use ‘Communities at Risk’ approach •  River Basin Management Plan alignments
  120. 120. Working across boundaries
  121. 121. Flood Defence Grant in Aid – being a partner
  122. 122. Planning for resilience
  123. 123. Creating resilient infrastructure
  124. 124. Investing in resilience
  125. 125. Supporting resilient communities
  126. 126. The challenge of infrastructure
  127. 127. Summary: •  Work with Environment Agency and contribute to partnership funding to enable schemes to proceed •  Embed flood risk in strategic planning and planning policy documents to deliver resilient development •  Retrofit existing homes and businesses with property level resilience measures •  Work with communities to ensure that they are prepared for flooding •  Ensure that drainage infrastructure reduced flood risk •  Work with others at a catchment level to deliver natural flood management •  Think about the resilience of wider infrastructure
  128. 128. Water Management in Greater Manchester – the story so far Will Horsfall, Salford City Council Natural Capital Group GM’s Local Nature Partnership
  129. 129. GM GI framework
  130. 130. 1970s – 1990s Greater Manchester River Valleys • Greater Manchester Council - Joint River Valley Partnerships • River Valley Local Plans • Land Reclamation • Joint Ranger Services • Joint Committees • Clear local authority leadership
  131. 131. Reducing resources, pressure on priorities Croal Irwell Valley Mersey Valley Etherow Goyt Valley Bollin Valley Tame Valley Medlock Valley Douglas Valley Bollin Valley Irk Valley Not primarily about water quality .. Land restoration and recreation
  132. 132. Multi sector partnership • Backed by government • Long term – improvements to Mersey Basin water quality • Private sector - key partners • United Utilities, Environment Agency • Voluntary sector and local community – local action
  133. 133. Rivers Return The Irwell Catchment Pilot
  134. 134. Catchment Based Approach • Government sees third sector playing a key role • Co-ordination and leadership • Supported by EA, UU, local authorities • Local people and volunteers • EA River Basin Management Plans • Local Catchment Plans?
  135. 135. Progress so far in GM • Four Catchment Management Partnerships • Established Rivers Return Irwell Catchment Pilot – Irwell Catchment Management Plan • Water Framework Directive – big challenge
  136. 136. EU LIFE Integrated Project ‘This project will be a game changer in managing the water environment through co- ordination, collaboration and convergence’ • 10 year project • 17 million Euros • Initial focus on Irwell Catchment
  137. 137. Natural Capital Group GM’s Local Nature Partnership
  138. 138. 2010 Lawton Review Making Space for Nature ‘Bigger, Better, Joined up’ ‘The Natural Choice – securing the value of nature’ Government White Paper on Natural Environment – June 2011
  139. 139. Natural Capital Group Membership • Lancashire Wildlife Trust – Chair Anne Selby • United Utilities – Vice Chair Chris Matthews • Co-operative Group • Canals and Rivers Trust • Environment Agency & Natural England • AGMA – Low Carbon Hub & Planning and Housing & Flood Risk Management Board • Council for Protection of Rural England & North West Environment Link • Salford University • Manchester University • Salford City Council – theme lead Will Horsfall 0.2 fte • Public Health representative • Red Rose Forest • Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
  140. 140. Vision • ‘The Natural Capital Group will promote the natural environment, co-ordinate activity across green infrastructure, waterways and biodiversity and develop their understanding of key ecosystem services across GM’. • ‘The group will highlight the importance and role of natural capital with the opportunities of health and wellbeing and the role that natural capital plays in climate resilience whilst promoting sustainable economic growth’.
  141. 141. Some issues • Lots of examples of brilliant water related projects led by third sector, local people, councils, UU, EA • Local focus … less strategic activity, catchment scale • Invasives – giant hogweed
  142. 142. Salford Friendly Anglers
  143. 143. Some issues – lessons from the past • Leadership • Engagement of all key players – at the right level • Key contributions from all partners • Planning – joint Local Plans vs National Planning Policy Framework • Compare with Lead Local Flood Authority role – opportunity LIFE Integrated Project – real opportunity
  144. 144. Thank you .. Any questions?
  145. 145. Urban Water Quality Monitoring Caroline Riley Partnership Manager Healthy Rivers Trust
  146. 146. Mersey Basin
  147. 147. The Mersey Basin •  Urban area •  High population
  148. 148. The salmon has returned, …but there’s still more to do The Mersey Basin
  149. 149. What does the Healthy Rivers Trust do? Projects Litter BoatCaBA Conferences & workshops Engagement
  150. 150. Catchment-Based Approach What do we do?
  151. 151. CaBA catchments Upper Mersey Irwell Lower Mersey Alt/Crossens Weaver Gowy
  152. 152. Our future aspirations rely on having improved water quality. Clean and healthy rivers full of fish. Aspira'ons  
  153. 153. issues   •  Pollution •  Litter
  154. 154. Urban Diffuse Pollution •  Urban run-off (eg from roads) •  Misconnections •  Trading estates •  Sediment •  Contaminated land (eg landfill sites)
  155. 155. Where’s it coming from? Road run-off Highway drains River Mis- connections Surface water drains River Source Pathway Receptor
  156. 156. Micker Brook
  157. 157. Engagement project •  Upper Mersey – Nameless tributary •  Catchment Partnership project •  River improvement •  River survey indicates misconnections •  Engaging public to find misconnections •  Name the stream competition & vote
  158. 158. Evidence-based Approach •  Locate the inputs to a local river •  Take water samples at hotspots •  Analyse to establish likely source •  Prioritise •  Deal with each source accordingly.
  159. 159. •  Primary ground survey of the waterbody •  Target identified reaches •  Identify points for wet weather sampling River Survey
  160. 160. Wet weather sampling
  161. 161. Wet weather sampling Analyse for: •  Nitrogen •  Ammonia •  Phosphate •  Silicate •  Heavy metals •  Temperature •  Conductivity •  pH
  162. 162. Data collected •  Sources •  Types •  Severity
  163. 163. Misconnections •  Public awareness is low
  164. 164. here Asking people… Where does this go to?
  165. 165. Easter Hunt for Misconnections •  Residents check their own plumbing •  Prizes include a plumber to fix it.
  166. 166. Engaging to find Misconnections •  ConnectRight •  Helps prevent more misconnections
  167. 167. Engaging the public
  168. 168. Engaging With local MP at an urban makers market
  169. 169. Next Steps •  Roll out the methodology to other urban areas •  Already incorporated into three other projects In Mersey Basin •  Monitor issues •  Simple water tests •  Follow up investigations Bring in volunteer help locally •  Promoting this technique •  Working with CaBA Urban working group Nationally
  170. 170. To address Urban Diffuse Water Pollution issues: •  Evidence-based project •  Engaging the public locally •  Targeting issues found in river surveys •  Local scale •  One brook at a time. More urban surveys
  171. 171. Future Less of this … and more of this
  172. 172. Thank you info@healthyriverstrust.org.uk Website: www.healthyriverstrust.org.uk Twitter: @merseyrivers
  173. 173. Accounts www.theriverstrust.org Defra Urban Demonstrator Sankey and Irwell case studies
  174. 174. How does the urban demonstrator fit in with our wider data & evidence approach? Local knowledge and experience Mentoring & Regional Hubs Wider evidence base of Data & GIS
  175. 175. How does the urban demonstrator fit in with our wider data & evidence approach? OpenData ++Re-purposed data from models 1234 1 2 3 4
  176. 176. We already have problems in urban areas and they are likely to get worse “David Balmforth, Ex president of the ICE”
  177. 177. Surface water flood modelling Source area Pinch point
  178. 178. Sewerage system: What can an Infoworks models tell us? Below ground only. CSO
  179. 179. What can an integrated urban model (surface water and sewerage) tell us? •  More reliable identification of source areas? •  A much fuller conceptual understanding of urban hydrology? •  The example we will look at is in Cambridge.
  180. 180. What information can we extract from flood risk modelling in urban areas?
  181. 181. Six flood models in the catchment What information can we extract from flood risk modelling in urban areas? Physical barriers A more complete picture to understand fish passage in our urban environment?
  182. 182. •  Licensing model software? •  Licensing model data, input and output? •  Technical knowledge and expertise? •  Trust. Model outputs can look good even if input data is weak? •  Partnership.....LA, Water Company and others. •  There is much more knowledge/evidence out there...we just need to re-purpose it. •  This sort of evidence can make a difference ....... What is stopping us making more use of model input and output to understand urban hydrology better?
  183. 183. Thank You Any Questions? www.theriverstrust.org
  184. 184. 1 Evidence & Measures Working with Stakeholders to Implement Evidence-Based Measures Prepared by Paul Hulme and Nick Rukin for the CaBA UrbanWorkshops, 15 & 18 Mar 2016 Moston Brook: Evidence,Actions & Funding Moston Brook Evidence & Measures ProjectTeam Danielle Tallboys Danielle.talboys@environment-agency.gov.uk Nick Rukin rukin@rukhydro.co.uk Paul Hulme paul.hulme@pjhydro.co.uk Paul Hulme
  185. 185. 2 Three Evidence & Measures Catchments in the North-West River Petteril 4 water bodies in the Eden Catchment Between Penrith and Carlisle Setting: lowland rural Key problem: poor trout numbers Tidal Ribble 8 water bodies between in the Ribble Catchment Between Preston and Lytham St Anne’s Setting: mixed rural, urban and coastal Key problems: poor coarse fish and water quality Moston Brook (Sep 2012 – Mar 2013) 1 water body in the Irwell Catchment North-east Manchester Setting: urban Key problems: no fish, bad water quality Aim: to work alongside stakeholders and use existing evidence to reach consensus on measures.
  186. 186. 3 Moston Brook Photos: Ann Bates, Moston Brook Project Officer, Partnership Project - Oldham Council & Manchester City Council
  187. 187. 4 Contents 1.  Use of existing evidence with stakeholders 2.  How this shared understanding empowered people to raise money and take action 3.  How you can get started RiverIrk
  188. 188. 5 1. Using existing evidence with stakeholdersRiverIrk
  189. 189. 6 Suspected Problems Identified at Moston Brook Officers’ Group Meeting
  190. 190. 7 Examples of Mapped Environment Agency Data The downstream end (Silchester Drive to River Irk) (Size of red circle reflects annual volume of discharge) - - - culvert Discharge consents (stars) red stars = sewage Combined Sewer Overflows
  191. 191. 8 Photographic Evidence Sewage rags on culvert outlets at the top of the brook Photo provided by Environment Agency
  192. 192. 9 Phosphate vs. Flow B A 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1/32 1/16 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 OrthophosphateConcentration(mg/lP) Daily Average Flow (m3/s) (Agency Estimate) (Log2 Scale) Variation of PO4 with Flow in Moston Brook at Wrigley Head N Culvert 2011 N Culvert 2010 N Culvert 2009 S Culvert 2011 S Culvert 2010 S Culvert 2009 Alford St 2010 Alford St 2009 Alford St 2008 Plot of phosphate concentration against flow: • A: deterioration with increased flows (evidence for storm sewage) • B: deterioration with reduced flows (evidence for misconnections) High flowsLow flows
  193. 193. 10 Mill Lane AlfordStreeet(NthenS) ChauncyLane D/sHaleLane U/sBroadway D/sBroadway LowerMemorialPark WilliamsRoad SilchesterDrive PtcIrk 0 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 384000 385000 386000 387000 388000 389000 390000 391000 392000 Ammoniacal+NitrateNitrogenConcentration(mg/lN) Easting Downstream Changes in Moston Brook at Different Flows 7/2/2011 (0.362 m3/s) 16/12/2010 (0.167 m3/s) 7/9/2010 (0.107 m3/s) 25/6/2010 (0.046 m3/s) 19/09/1995 (0.038 m3/s) Sample Points Downstream Changes in Water Quality A UpstreamDownstream B Ammonia gets worse at both A & B Low conc (good) High conc (bad) At low flows At higher flows
  194. 194. 11 Mill Lane AlfordStreeet(NthenS) ChauncyLane D/sHaleLane U/sBroadway D/sBroadway LowerMemorialPark WilliamsRoad SilchesterDrive PtcIrk 0 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 384000 385000 386000 387000 388000 389000 390000 391000 392000 Ammoniacal+NitrateNitrogenConcentration(mg/lN) Easting Downstream Changes in Moston Brook at Different Flows 7/2/2011 (0.362 m3/s) 16/12/2010 (0.167 m3/s) 7/9/2010 (0.107 m3/s) 25/6/2010 (0.046 m3/s) 19/09/1995 (0.038 m3/s) Sample Points Water Quality Ratios A UpstreamDownstream B Point B: Observed ratio of ammonia:phosphate is typical of ratio in sewage. Point A: Observed ratio of ammonia:potassium is typical of ratio in landfill leachate. Low conc (good) High conc (bad)
  195. 195. 12 The Sewer Network 7. Silchester Dr to R Irk Location of sewage entering culvert , photographs from EA culvert inspection team, 16 & 17 Aug 2005 - - - culvert Point B
  196. 196. 13 Evidence for Misconnections Diurnal Sewage Signal in Water Quality Logger (Point B) Typical domestic sewage signal Mon WedFri Sunday (it rained so signal lost)
  197. 197. 14 Strength of Evidence Tables Gathering all the evidence into one place for stakeholders to review See handout for details
  198. 198. 15 2. How this shared understanding empowered people to raise money and take action
  199. 199. 16 Main Causes of Failure Main Causes Measures Top Sewage from CSOs, sewage misconnections Middle Landfill leachate, sewage misconnections (side tributary) Bottom Sewage misconnections or leaking sewers, sewage from CSOs
  200. 200. 17 Main Causes of Failure and Selected Measures Main Causes Measures Top Sewage from CSOs, sewage misconnections EA and UU act together to investigate any uncharted combined sewage overflows (CSO) and wrong connections - easy ones now, harder ones next AMP cycle. Middle Landfill leachate, sewage misconnections (side tributary) Hardman Fold: capping with suitable design, install leachate drain/interceptor & enhanced toe drain. Surface water transfer from canal or surface drains to increase flow in the brook, dilute & increase resilience to pollution. Stop up and divert the drains at 2 sites; the Lancaster Club & Lower Memorial Park. Wrong connection awareness campaigns either by post or email. Influence planners and local authority to open up culverts. Remove weir and replace with rock ramp for aeration. Bottom Sewage misconnections or leaking sewers, sewage from CSOs Rationalisation of 6 CSOs into 2 in culvert between Kenyon Lane and Potters Lane. EA to attend Category 3 pollution incidents that have been identified as a risk in Moston Brook (for sewage). UU and EA culvert team to develop a joint survey to identify known and unchartered combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and wrong connections (with potentially some water quality sampling).
  201. 201. 18 Some Actions Implemented Since March 2013 Top UU: Fitting existing pumping station with new filter system and building a new underground tank, chamber and sewers (see leaflet, next slide). Top UU: Alford Pumping Station scope of works has been completed. Top Work on misconnections in Alford Street area. Top Project Officer: Mill Lane project Phases 1 & 2: to address urban diffuse pollution from surface water run-off from a car breakers yard, industrial units and former landfill sites. Top Project Officer: Green infrastructure & community development - sustainable urban drainage (SuDS) footpath trial scheme at Wrigley Head to address urban diffuse pollution from surface water drainage from former landfill sites. Middle One significant issue that was identified at the Evidence & Measures workshops, and where progress has not been made, is the Hardman Fold landfill site. Hardman Fold has changed hands and is now privately owned. Bottom UU: Installed a new filtering system near Monsall St. & Queen's Rd. Top & Bottom UU: Have doubled their efforts into investigating sewage misconnections in Moston Brook. Project Officer: Community awareness-raising project on WQ & sewage misconnections. Work on sewage infrastructure, misconnections, SuDS, community awareness & development.
  202. 202. 19 Other Benefits & Funding Since March 2013 Other Environment Agency & Water Co projects – details not known ? Other Local Authority projects: •  Clean City Award for 4 new Moston Brook entrances & environmental improvements. ~£94k •  Grant from Oldham Council for a new Moston Brook entrance. ~£17k •  Investment from Oldham Council to improve access at Wrigley Head ~£16k •  Successful acquisition by Lancashire Wildlife Trust of the remainder of the Moston Fairway leading to: •  Investment by People’s Postcode Lottery into a Forest Schools Project. •  Viridor landfill tax grant for access improvements. •  Grant from Veolia for habitat improvements and 2-day per week funded post. ~£106k •  Manchester City Council have appointed consultants to treat non-waterside invasives. Environment Agency have continued to treat waterside invasives. •  Annual programme of community events delivered including annual Moston Brook Fun Day. •  Moston Brook Friends group committee meeting monthly. •  Funding applications submitted to Tesco & Asda community funds. •  Small grant received from FTPE & Forestry Commission for wildflower planting. Moston Brook attracted up to 10 times the funding of similar catchments?
  203. 203. 20 Changes Since 2013: Ammonia §  Ammonia was the biggest WQ problem. §  Since 2013 it has improved so dramatically that Moston Brook may now be at good status for ammonia. 2013Year
  204. 204. 21 Changes Since 2013: Dissolved Oxygen §  At the same time dissolved oxygen levels have recovered. 2013Year
  205. 205. 22 3. How can you get started?
  206. 206. 23 Readily-Available Data: 1 or 2 Water Bodies Dataset CaBA GIS Environment Agency Water Company Water quality monitoring WFD status at monitoring points Original monitoring data Pollution incidents Summaries per water body Detailed point data Discharge consents Summaries per water body Detailed point data Source apportionment Summaries for P & N More detail for P & N Sewer network map Permission needed Catchment to surface water outfall Permission needed
  207. 207. 24 Readily-Available Data: Many Water Bodies CaBA GIS dataset §  Data collated in the categories: biodiversity, water quality, flood risk and urban deprivation
  208. 208. 25 More Information Moston Brook Summary Report On the internet, search for: “Moston Brook Summary Report for the Evidence and Measures Project” Evidence & Measures 2-page Summary Notes (handouts)
  209. 209. 26 Proposed Programme of Work Being Discussed A chance to get involved §  Collaborative with multiple partners; §  Aiming to apply learning from Moston Brook to other areas in the Irwell. 1.  Review the impact of the measures implemented on Moston Brook a.  Record measures implemented on Moston Brook. b.  Review their impact in terms of objectives agreed with stakeholders. (For example: water quality, community engagement, improvements to deprived areas, flood risk, biodiversity, recreation opportunities etc.) c.  Produce bulletin to show benefits. 2.  Use readily-available CaBA datasets & learning from Moston Brook to produce initial evidence base to agree actions in the Irwell a.  Meet with Irwell CaBA team and identify their key issues and locations. b.  Use the readily-available CaBA datasets to rapidly produce initial evidence against these key issues. (Potential to tie-up with LIFE-IP project in the North-West.) c.  At a workshop, stakeholders review evidence and identify what areas and measures will be prioritised. d.  Identify funding mechanisms for the agreed measures. e.  Carry out more detailed evaluation of the evidence if stakeholders require.
  210. 210. 27 Conclusions Evidence Stakeholder Workshops Shared Understanding Agreement on What Needs Doing and Where People Available to Get Things Done (Moston Brook Project Officer, United Utilities) Improvements On The Ground (and In The Water)
  211. 211. 28
  212. 212. 29 Ratios of different water quality components To identify discharges from landfill and sewage At point A (Broadway to Williams Rd) §  Blue diamonds show observed ratio of ammonia + nitrate (N):potassium (K) §  Red line shows average ratio in landfill. At point B (Williams Rd to the Irk) §  Blue diamonds show observed ratio of ammonia:phosphate. §  Red line shows average ratio in sewage. Shows that A is predominantly a landfill source and B predominantly a sewage source. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 Increasein[AmmoniacalN+Nitrate-N](mg/lN) Increase in Potassium (mg/l) Changes in [NH4 + NO3] and K between Broadway and Williams Rd on Moston Brook Williams Road - d/s Broadway LandSim Landfill NH4:K Ratio 20% 10% 5% 1% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 IncreaseinAmmoniacalNitrogend/sofWilliamsRoad(mg/lN) Increase in Orthophosphate d/s of Williams Road (mg/l P) Changes in NH4 and PO4 between Williams Rd and the Irk on Moston Brook to ptc R Irk EA Guidance Sewage Ratio % is %Sewage in Water Ammonia+Nitrate Potassium Ammonia Phosphate
  213. 213. Guy Pluckwell Environment Agency Project Manager
  214. 214. Love your river Telford !   Evidence
  215. 215. Love your river Telford
  216. 216. !   Main objectives !   Improve water quality and habitat by working efficiently together !   Community engagement and participation !   Raise awareness ! Mis-connections !   Pollution prevention !   Physical improvements
  217. 217. Working together Clean Stream Team Volunteers groups Local Community Business Community Stakeholder organisations Schools
  218. 218. Working together !   Clean Stream Team •  Proactive multi organisational team !   Volunteer Groups •  Support •  Training •  Equipment
  219. 219. Working together !   School education programme •  River Rangers !   Local community
  220. 220. Working together !   Business Community !   Organisations
  221. 221. Working together Clean Stream Team Volunteers groups Local Community Business Community Stakeholder organisations Schools
  222. 222. Love your river Telford !  Clean Stream Team !  React to reports !  Seek and investigate !  Community liaison !  Pollution Prevention !  Advice
  223. 223. Love your river Telford
  224. 224. Love your river Telford !  Clean Stream Team !  1 contact number !   familiar faces !  1 agreed approach !  Togetherness !  Efficient approach !  Improved relationships
  225. 225. Working together
  226. 226. Working together !  SUDs
  227. 227. Working together ! Deculverting
  228. 228. Working together !  In-channel improvements
  229. 229. Working together !  DePave
  230. 230. Benefits Yet to be monetised
  231. 231. Benefits 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Cost  of  project Potential  savings  realised   by  project 238 1825 Cost  v  Potential  saving  (£k)
  232. 232. Looking beyond !   External funding
  233. 233. Transferable model !   Bromsgrove !   Worcester? Hereford? Gloucester? Evesham? Merseyside? Portsmouth? East Anglia? Ireland? Trentside? Amber Valley? !   See blog : https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk !   See Twitter: @LYR_Telford Questions?
  234. 234. 1.0   11/03/16  
  235. 235. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   2   The  scale  of  the  challenge   WFD  classifica6on   vs  popula6on   density   STW   Urban   P  Source  Appor6onment   •  Large  areas  where  we   clearly  need  to  address  P   load  from  treatment  works   •  …but  a  large  number  of   rivers  where  other  urban   sources  are  a  bigger  issue  
  236. 236. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   3   Impact  of  urban  areas   Why  are  United  U9li9es  interested  in  urban  diffuse  pollu9on?   •  High  level  of  interac6on  between  urban  run-­‐off  and  our  sewers   •  Risk  of  misconnec6ons  to  surface  water  sewers   •  Many  combined  systems  that  spill  to  river  at  peak  flow   •  Overloading  and  blockages  cause  sewer  flooding  of  proper6es   •  Our  treatment  works  are  not  able  to  remove  many  pollutants   •  Many  chemicals  are  already  highly  prevalent  in  the  environment   Flooding   Misconnec6ons   Sewer   misuse   Tackling   pollu6on  at   source  
  237. 237. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   4   Urban  diffuse  pollu9on:  impact  for  water  industry   •  Surface  water  runoffs  to   sewers   •  CSO  spills   •  Sewer  flooding   •  Pumping  sta6on  capacity   Sewer   network:   Reduced   capacity  and   opera9onal   performance   •  Screening  issues   •  Flow  compliance   •  Process  capacity   (load/volume)   •  FE  quality  compliance   •  Sludge  volume   increase  &  quality   reduc6on    Sewage   treatment   works:     Reduced   capacity  and   opera9onal   performance   Reduced   water  quality   Nega9ve   reputa9onal   impact   Permit  failure   Prosecu9on   Fines   Opera9onal   impact   Pollu9on   incidents   Asset  and   customer   flooding  
  238. 238. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   5   Chemical  Inves9ga9ons  Programme  Phase  2  (CIP2)   What  are  we  doing  and  why?   The  stated  aims  of  CIP2  are  to:     •  Move   to   a   more   site-­‐specific   assessment   of   individual   discharges   priori6sed   by   environmental  risk;     •  Provide   a   defini6ve   (high   confidence)   assessment   of   EQS   compliance   downstream   of   discharges;     •  Assess   the   contribu6on   made   by   WwTW   effluents  to  concentra6ons  of  trace  substances;     •  Establish   demonstra6on-­‐scale   trials   of   novel   treatment   processes   for   trace   substance   removal   •  Explore   a   catchment-­‐based   rather   than   discharge-­‐based   approach   to   pollu6on   management.       Samples  analysed  for  70  substances  including   pharmaceu6cals  such  as  ibuprofen,   contracep6ve  hormones  (oestrogens),  garden   products  and  household  cleaning  products.    
  239. 239. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   6   Urban  diffuse  pollu9on:  routes   Mobilisa9on  of  diffuse   pollutants  through  surface/ sub-­‐surface   water  runoffs   Diffuse  pollutants:     Par6culate  macer     Nutrients   Metals   Endocrine-­‐disrupters   Hydrocarbons   Solvents     Herbicides     Pes6cides   Faecal  coliforms   Trigger:   Rainfall  events     (and  snow  melt)   Urban  pathways:   Impermeable  surfaces   Piped  drains   CSOs   Soil  
  240. 240. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   7   Sustainable  Urban  Drainage  Systems  (SuDS)   Provides  a  dual  benefit     -­‐  Slows  surface  water  runoff   -­‐  Reduces  pollu6on  at  source    
  241. 241. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   8   LIFE  Integrated  Project  
  242. 242. Copyright  ©  United  U6li6es  Water  Limited  2016   9   LIFE  IP  –  Increasing  Delivery  

×