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.

The Rivers Trust Autumn Conference: Day 2 - Session 1

485 views

Published on

The Partnership approach & assessing the benefits of catchment management. 12th & 13th September 2016 at the Rougemont Hotel, Exeter. Following the decision to leave the EU the need to come together to tackle the complex environmental problems we face such as diffuse pollution and habitat fragmentation has never been greater. This conference sets out the benefits and drawbacks of partnership working and the effectiveness of dealing with problems at a catchment scale.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Rivers Trust Autumn Conference: Day 2 - Session 1

  1. 1. Chaired by Prof Laurence Smith
  2. 2. Managing Director, South West Water
  3. 3. The case for resilient catchments Improving resilience through collaboration Dr Stephen Bird Managing Director, South West Water 4
  4. 4. SOUTH WEST WATER REGION AND RESPONSIBILITIES • Population of 1.7m • 70,000 businesses • Dispersed population • Many tourists – pop. swells to 8m in summer • A unique environment: 35% of England’s designated bathing waters 19% of England’s designated shellfish waters National Parks, ANOBs, SACs, Biosphere Reserve , NIA, etc 5
  5. 5. RESILIENCE CHALLENGES Flooding Drought Coastal Erosion 6
  6. 6. The resilience challenge for SWW
  7. 7. RESILIENCE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WATER INDUSTRY (1) Cabinet Office: ‘Keeping the Country Running’ – Natural Hazards and Infrastructure (2) Ofwat: ‘Towards Resilience – How we will Embed Resilience in our Work’ (3) Resilience Task and Finish Group Report (4) Ofwat: ‘Reliable services for customers – consultation on Ofwat’s role on resilience WHY IS IT A HOT TOPIC? WHY IS IT A HOT TOPIC? • Climate change and population growth • Scarcity and affordability concerns • Financial and economic pressures WHAT DOES RESILIENCE MEAN? “Resilience is the ability to cope with, and to recover from, disruption and anticipate trends and variability in order to maintain services for people and protect the natural environment” HOW CAN THE SECTOR EMBED RESILIENCE? • Long-term planning • Innovation • Investing based on whole-life costs and benefits 8
  8. 8. THE NATIONAL RESILIENCE POLICY DEBATE • Recognition of the need to change • New duties and focus • Lots of parliamentary reviews post winter 2015 flooding • New ways of working - developing catchment solutions • Ministerial hands on approach- eg Somerset Levels • Much debate over design standards and practices • Should we wait for central policy ? 9
  9. 9. CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COSTS IN THE SW 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 Wessex South West Southern Cost per Bill Payer 2015-2021 CAP LA FCERM (capex) FCERM (opex) Insurance Highway Agency Voluntary NVZ Regulation Catchment Partners Local IDBs EA Environment Spend
  10. 10. RESILIENCE WHAT SOUTH WEST WATER IS ALREADY DOING WHY IS IT A HOT TOPIC? • ORGANISATIONAL SECURITY Operational innovation Skills development and apprentice programmes • SERVICE & ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE Upstream and Downstream Thinking WaterShare performance monitoring framework • FINANCIAL VIABILITY Efficient equity and debt finance base Growth opportunities Payment for Eco-system Services (PES) Flood defence funding and support 1 1
  11. 11. CATCHMENT RESILIENCE SOUTH WEST WATER CATCHMENT RESILIENCE PLANNING DOWNSTREAM THINKING Multi-agency, multi-benefit approach to sustainable improvements in urban flooding and drainage SuDs, highway drainage, landscaping and active network monitoring & management Pilot approaches, trialling innovative behaviours and techniques UPSTREAM THINKING • Multi-partner, multi-benefit approach to improving raw water quality and natural water storage • 11 catchments in the South West targeted for moorland and agricultural improvements 12
  12. 12. Upstream Thinking Flagship environmental project £9m (2010-15) £10m (2015-20) Partnership delivery 2 workstreams: - moorland restoration - agricultural improvements Focus on water quality Improving natural water quality and water storage in the landscape
  13. 13. Catchment quality issues and WTWs Pesticides, crypto, colour… N Algae, metaldehyde… Pesticides, algae… Bacteria, crypto, Geosmin Nutrients, pesticides, DO, turbidity… Metaldehyde, colour, crypto
  14. 14. Catchment interventions: Cornwall Wildlife Trust (CWT) Devon Wildlife Trust (DWT) Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT) Exmoor Mires Partnership (EMP) Exmoor National Park (ENPA) Scientific monitoring: University of Exeter Project partners South West Water Catchments River Exe River Dart River Tamar River Fowey Cofton Cross and Otter Fernworthy Barnstaple Yeo Argal & College River Cober Drift Who and where?
  15. 15. Film: Upstream Thinking - https://youtu.be/Fb6e_e3f5Cc
  16. 16. SWW BENEFITS FROM PARTNERSHIP DELIVERY OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT • Match funding from sources SWW cannot access • Extra delivery by the partners in areas that SWW is less able to fund such as biodiversity • Use of a 3rd party for delivery brings greater success - the honest broker approach • Builds partnership support from stakeholders • Customer support and reputational benefits
  17. 17. FUTURE SOLUTIONS FOR THE SOUTH WEST • We must reach a common understanding on infrastructure resilience needs & solutions • Need to balance scarce resources to respond to challenges and continue to work in partnership to leverage investment through matched funding opportunities • Need to translate central policy, when it comes, to local actions plans 1 9
  18. 18. DEVELOPING A COMMON UNDERSTANDING • Undertake joint research and data analysis • Create a common understanding of the hazards and risks • Working with universities, flood forecasting centre and Met Office to quantify risks and impacts • Work with lead flood authorities, local land drainage boards, Environment Agency, farmers, developers and other utilities – encourage sharing of strategies and action plans 20
  19. 19. Water Stewardship Manager, WWF
  20. 20. www.waterlife.org.ukwww.waterlife.org.uk WWF registered charity no.1081247, a company limited by guarantee no. 4016725 WATERLIFE is funded by EC LIFE+. Project number: LIFE13 ENV/UK/000497 Water stewardship: a framework for engaging business in catchment management Lucy Lee Water Stewardship Manager, WWF-UK Rivers Trust Conference 13th September 2016
  21. 21. www.waterlife.org.uk Focus of the presentation 1. Why water matters to UK business 2. How water stewardship provides a framework for engaging business in catchment management 3. WWF’s action to date to engage business in catchment management in the UK and plans for supporting increased engagement
  22. 22. www.waterlife.org.uk Message 1 - It makes business sense for the corporate businesses to play a long-term role in WFD delivery.1. It makes business sense for the corporate businesses to play a long-term role in WFD delivery. 1.Why water matters to UK business
  23. 23. www.waterlife.org.uk Water matters to business • The WEF’s Global Risk Report 2015 ranked “water crises” as the top risk to global growth. • Freshwater species have declined by 76% since 1970. • ½ European rivers and 17% of English rivers meet Good Ecological Status. • The drivers of the economic water risks are the same as those for the decline in freshwater species:  physical water scarcity  poor management of the rivers, lakes and aquifers which supply our water.
  24. 24. www.waterlife.org.uk Physical • Flooding • Water scarcity • Water quality Regulatory • 20-30% compliance gap • Changes through Water Act and legislation • Regulatory uncertainty associated with Brexit Reputational • Associated with impacts on communities and ecosystems Opportunity framing can be useful to engage The River Mimram, Hertfordshire during drought Diffuse pollution caused by food and drinks supply chain UK business water risks & opps
  25. 25. www.waterlife.org.uk 2. How water stewardship provides a framework for engaging business in catchment management
  26. 26. www.waterlife.org.uk Water Awareness Collective Action Influence Governance Internal Action WWF’s Water Stewardship Framework Knowledge of Impact Internal water management Businesses understand their impact and take action to better manage water in their own operations and supply chains Water stewardship Businesses engage beyond their own operations and supply chains
  27. 27. www.waterlife.org.uk WS as a framework for engaging business in CM • Water risks are a result of cumulative water use in catchments • Internal water management is therefore not sufficient to manage water risks or maximise opportunities • Businesses need to work collectively with stakeholders in catchments where they have a hotspot of water risk to develop integrated solutions • The catchment management approach provides a perfect framework to enable this and engage business in supporting delivery of the WFD
  28. 28. www.waterlife.org.uk 1. We are working in East Anglia, England to demonstrate and test this approach. 3. WWF’s action to date to engage business in catchment management and plans for supporting increased engagement
  29. 29. www.waterlife.org.uk Collective action with business – River Nar Aim Deliver environmental improvements through collaborative delivery • Funded by Coca Cola • Addressing reputational risks associated with diffuse pollution in the sugar supply chain • Brought together a range of partners including Norfolk RT, the NFU, NE Actions • Creation of Local WFD Catchment Plan • Engaged farmers to improve over 2000 acres of land • Re-meandering channels
  30. 30. www.waterlife.org.uk Collective action – WaterLIFE • Though our WaterLIFE project we are engaging additional businesses in catchment management • Focus on engaging farmers to reduce agricultural pollution • Two catchments  Cam-Ely-Ouse and Broadlands • AIM: scale up the approach and learning from our work in the River Nar and drive broader change in East Anglia
  31. 31. www.waterlife.org.uk Supporting increased business engagement in CM We are working with the RT to create a CaBA related work package around water stewardship. • Higher resolution data for England via the Water Risk Filter • Guidance on water stewardship for the food and drink sector in England Its early day so watch this space for more information.
  32. 32. www.waterlife.org.uk Influencing governance • Joint action to ensure the right policies and rules are in place to enable the water environment to improve. • Without changes in governance it will be impossible for businesses to mitigate their business risk. • Through our partnership with Coca Cola, we have supported a number of actions:  Government & business WFD roundtable.  Sugar beet workshops  Secretary of State visits  Business to business engagement  Joint activities at party conference  Joint report launches with government – The Chalk Stream report
  33. 33. www.waterlife.org.uk In conclusion 1. Water matters to UK businesses 2. Water stewardship provides a framework for engaging business in catchment management 3. WWF is taking action to engage business in catchment management and is developing a toolkit with the RT to support increased engagement
  34. 34. www.waterlife.org.uk Questions? Thank you
  35. 35. Technical Specialist – Environment Agency
  36. 36. The condition of soils in our catchments and the impact on the water environment Richard Smith Technical Specialist – Environment Agency
  37. 37. Enhanced runoff Infiltration
  38. 38. The condition of soils in the South West
  39. 39. Soil degradation in relation to runoff Severe Moderate High Low
  40. 40. Soil condition assessment
  41. 41. % clay Areas surveyed in the South West (2002 to 2011) Hampshire Avon Frome Axe & Otter Tone and Parrett Bristol Avon Creedy & Culm Torridge & Tamar Marazion Bodmin
  42. 42. Soil structure degradation in the South West during winter months 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 (87) 2 (123) 3 (112) 4 (46) 5 (2087) 6 (62) 7 (623) 8 (49) Soil type Percentageoccurrence Severe High Moderate Low Shallow calcareous Deeper calcareous Pelosols Brown podzolic Brown earths Brown sands Stagno- gley Ground- water gley Soil type
  43. 43. Soil structure degradation in the South West during winter months 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Potatoes (70) Maize (198) Winter cereals (670) Stubble (166) Ley grass (638) Total cultivated (2032) Permanent grass (1154) All sites (3243) Land use Percentageoccurrence Severe High Moderate Low Potatoes (70) Maize (198) Winter cereals (670) Stubble (166) Ley grass (638) Total cultivated (2032) Permanent grass (1154) All sites (3243)
  44. 44. 60% runoff from grassland with moderate soil structure 2% runoff from grassland with good soil structure Measuring runoff at Boscastle
  45. 45. Summary Soil surveys in the South West have found a widespread problem with soil condition affecting runoff The runoff problem is exacerbated by bad weather and commercial pressures faced by farmers The South West is a high risk area and the environmental impact is serious
  46. 46. Reader in Physical Geography, University of Leicester
  47. 47. Pesticides in water – challenges and opportunities Mick Whelan
  48. 48. Maximum concentrations observed at Grimsbury Cpropyzamide 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 months conc(Average) Cpropyzamide Ccarbetamide 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 months conc(Average) Ccarbetamide Average monthly propyzamide concentrations at Grimsbury Average monthly carbetamide concentrations at Grimsbury CONTEXT: Concentrations of some pesticides periodically challenge DWD compliance
  49. 49. Cherwell: Field-scale monitoring Hypothesis: Field drains are a major conduit for herbicide transfer to the Cherwell
  50. 50. Drain flow monitoring
  51. 51. www.le.ac.uk Herbicide concentrations in drain flow Very rapid, significant transfer to field drain in the first event post application Concentration recession mirrors hydrograph recession Propyzamide losses 1.1% of applied Carbetamide losses 8.6% of applied
  52. 52. Metaldehyde Widely used for slug control Aqueous solubility: 222 mg L-1 at 20°C Low KOC: 85 L kg-1 Soil DT50: 4.5 – 73 days No photolysis or hydrolysis Difficult to remove in treatment → “Undertakings” From UKWIR report 2014
  53. 53. www.le.ac.uk What to do? • Buffer Zones? • Hard surface management? • Reduce total inputs? • In drain or ditch treatment? • Better soil management? • Operational controls on abstraction?
  54. 54. Reduce total inputs? Storage (Soil 1) Rain ETa Drainage Storage (Soil 2) Drainage OLF Rain ETa OLF Qmod Rainfall Drainflow Surface Water Groundwater Recharge Solid phase Liquid phase Air phase Saturated θsat Field Capacity θ5 θ200θ150050% of θ1500 Interactive water Mobile water Pre-event depth of pesticide penetration Pesticide Pesticides subject to: • Linear sorption • First-order degradation θ0 j Mixed land use
  55. 55. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Q(m3/s) Conc(ug/L) Date C pest 1 C pest 2 C pest 3 C pest 4 C pest 5 mod Q Modelled exposure from hypothetical application scenario Reduce total inputs? Baseline Scenario: 5 actives applied to different crops at different times
  56. 56. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Q(m3/s) Conc(ug/L) Date C pest 1 C pest 2 C pest 3 C pest 4 C pest 5 mod Q Scenario A: Reducing the fraction of managed grassland treated with pesticide 4 from 25% to 12.5% Reduce total inputs? Modelled exposure from hypothetical application scenario
  57. 57. Scenario B: Not growing cereals on poorly drained soil (Cereals moved to other soils, grass and some OSR to heavy soil). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Q(m3/s) Conc(ug/L) Date C pest 1 C pest 2 C pest 3 C pest 4 C pest 5 mod Q Change locations for key crops? Modelled exposure from hypothetical application scenario
  58. 58. On-line treatment Hope farm in Knapwell (Cambridgeshire) m asl 3.9 km2 catchment
  59. 59. 0 50 100 150 200 250 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Q(L/s) Metaldehydeconc.(ug/L) Metaldehyde (ug/L) Inlet Metaldehyde (ug/L) Outlet Q V-notch (l/s) IN Metaldehyde S. Wetland y = 0.9048x + 0.0692 R² = 0.9043 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Conc.OutletSW2(ug/L) Conc. Inlet SW1 (ug/L) Paired t-test for means – no significant difference between concentrations in the inlet and outlet
  60. 60. 0 10 20 30 40 Rainfall(mm/d) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Concmetaldehyde(ug/L) Conc(ug/L)orQ(L/s) QUINMERAC (ug/L) METAZACHLOR (ug/L) SA2-NP-OUT.PIPE METALDEHYDE (ug/L) Outflow Stops N. Wetland
  61. 61. Dynamic model predictions DT50 sed = 122 d DT50 wat = 12.2 d A = 210 m2 z = 0.5 m 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Discharge(L/s) Conc(ng/L) Time (hours) C pred C meas C input Q meas
  62. 62. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Discharge(L/s) Conc(ng/L) Time (hours) C meas C input Cpred Q meas DT50 sed = 122 d DT50 wat = 12.2 d A = 2100 m2 z = 1 m Increase area x10 Decrease in peak conc by 36% Reduction in total flux <1% Dynamic model predictions
  63. 63. Soil Management Min / no-till now common BUT may require higher applications (e.g. of herbicides) Subsoiling → ↑ transport to drains? ↑ aeration & ↑ degradation? Soil compaction → ↑ OLF More Research Required!
  64. 64. Conclusions: Challenges (some) • Concentrations of some pesticide active ingredients occasionally challenge DWD compliance • Problems particularly acute for compounds with low treatment removal efficiency (e.g. metaldehyde) • Field drains represent significant pathways in heavy soils → limited benefits from farmyard management + buffer zones • Issues arise from multiple actors – need to get a critical mass on board to achieve objectives • DWD standards are absolute but effectiveness of catchment management is subject to variability
  65. 65. Conclusions: Opportunities (some) • Potential benefits for crop rotation changes involving reduced total usage and changes in application timings • On line treatment wetlands (probably) of limited value for catchment protection (need high wetland : catchment area) • Better understanding of catchment dynamics could help to target interventions (e.g. on vulnerable soils) and inform operational controls (e.g. on abstraction) • Soil management may offer (currently unknown) benefits – more research needed!
  66. 66. Engineer, Arup
  67. 67. 74 Current understanding of NFM and where we go from here Alexander Nicholson @AlexNicho1
  68. 68. 75 Natural flood management (NFM) is the alteration, restoration or use of landscape features to reduce flood risk (POST, 2011). What is Natural Flood Management? POST. (2011). Natural Flood Management POSTNOTE 396. London, UK: Parliamentary Offices of Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-396 SLOW STORE FILTER
  69. 69. 76 Benefits of NFM • Reduction of peak flow at downstream receptors • Reduced erosion (on land and in waterbodies) • Reduced sediment delivery (capturing at source) • Improved water quality (reduced costs to water companies) • Habitat creation (terrestrial and aquatic) • Drought reduction (and agricultural enhancement)?
  70. 70. Pickering
  71. 71. Holnicote © National Trust © Penny Anderson Associates © National Trust
  72. 72. 79 Stroud
  73. 73. Belford
  74. 74. 81 PhD findings 𝑑𝑉 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑄𝑖𝑛 − 𝑄 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑄 𝑑𝑠 = 𝑄 𝑢𝑠 − 𝑑𝑉 𝑑𝑡 Analytical method: Monitored evidence: Filling Full Emptying 10% reduction in flow from one pond! Though – this was not the design event.
  75. 75. 82 Modelling method: Modelled results: PhD findings 𝐼 = ቐ 0 𝑖𝑓 𝑧 𝑠1 ≤ 𝑧 𝑠𝑤 𝑓𝑟 𝐶 𝑑 2 3 𝑏 2𝑔 𝑧𝑠1 − 𝑧 𝑠𝑤 1.5 𝑖𝑓 𝑧 𝑠1 > 𝑧 𝑠𝑤 𝑓𝑟 = 1.0 𝑖𝑓 𝑧 𝑠2 ≤ 𝑧 𝑠𝑤 1 − 𝑧 𝑠2 − 𝑧 𝑠𝑤 𝑧 𝑠1 − 𝑧 𝑠𝑤 1.5 0.385 𝑖𝑓 𝑧 𝑠2 > 𝑧 𝑠𝑤
  76. 76. 83 • Water storage capacity ≈ 280 m3 • 70 ha contributing area Multi-benefits (sediment and water quality)
  77. 77. 84 0 2 15min rain(mm) 0.0 5.0 10.0 Flumestage (cm) 0 0.2 0.4 TPconc.(mgl-1) TP in TP out 0 100 200 300 SSconc.(mgl-1) SS in SS out 0 2 4 6 8 NO3conc.(mgl-1) NO3 in NO3 out Retention (% concentration) • SS: 25 – 67 (49% net retention) • TP: 16 – 44 (33% net retention) • NO3: 5 – 85 (18% net retention) ~ £2000 of work
  78. 78. 85 Other initiatives • Cumbria Floods Partnership (and action plan) • Working with Natural Processes (and opportunity mapping) • Defra model competition • NERC Research Call (up to £6M)
  79. 79. 86 Mapping
  80. 80. 87 Mapping
  81. 81. 88 Mapping – NFM+
  82. 82. 89 Sub-catchment division
  83. 83. • How might the sub-catchments be interacting? • How can this sort of analysis help with NFM and catchment management? Flow contribution Q (m3/s) t (hrs) Combined flow downstream Thanks to Gareth Owen and Paul Quinn
  84. 84. 91 NFM Tool (Knowledge sharing)
  85. 85. 92 Estimating storage requirements and costs 1km 1km How much storage is needed? (Based on the Belford Study and other research) Need approx. 2,000m3 / km2 If storage areas only fill up to 25cm, the area of land take will be 8,000m2, which equates to 1% of the land* Conservative costs: £10 / m3 This means to deliver an NFM scheme for: 10km2 Catchment = £200,000 100km2 Catchment = £2,000,000 * Paul Quinn’s 5% future. Let’s also remember that these features only take up this area when full of water
  86. 86. 93 Benefits and funding FDGiA OM1 – Damages avoided OM2 – Moving risk bands (Low, Medium, High) OM4a – Water dependent habitat Partnership funding Natural England Forestry Commission How many properties are you potentially benefiting? Multiple locations and further downstream
  87. 87. 94 Maintenance AIMS Asset description Maintenance plan Access What features can be maintained? What is the whole life cost of the scheme? Should the EA be tasked with maintenance? Role of Flood Action Group Belford: Of the 48 features, 40 are eligible for adding to AIMS (the other 8 are LWD dams) £2,000 / year
  88. 88. 95 Questions? Thanks to Newcastle University @AlexNicho1 alex.nicholson@arup.com
  89. 89. 12th & 13th September 2016 Rougemont Hotel, Exeter

×