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

5. Application Scales

6. Flood Defence Obectives Fisheries Obectives Flood Defence issue Channel capacity Fisheries issue No fish Catchment Issue Accelerated Erosion Local Authorities Agenda Local authorities Issues Anglers Agenda Anglers Issues

7. Aims n Prioritise management n Integrate function management for Catchment Issues –Define strategy tailored to catchment and management needs –Treat problem at source –Identify catchment issues

8. Prioritise management

9. Habitat Quality & Modification in England & Wales Uses: Global overview, Leaps, Other local applications HQAHMI

10. LEAP QUALITY ASSESSMENT

11. Identify catchment issues

12. Catchment scale application The Sankey Now Project n Aims –Natural asset register –State of the environment –Management priorities

13. RHS site distribution in the Sankey catchment n=125

14. Management impact n = 125 n = 4569

15. Determining a Sub-set of Similar Reference Sites Low altitude/Low slopeHigh altitude/High slope High energy Low energy

16. n = 125 n = 277n = 4569

17. Gen. Info: Landuse in the Sankey Catchment l Wooded l Agricultural l Semi-rural l Urban

18. Define strategy tailored to catchment and management needs

19. River Rehabilitation

20. n ISSUE –Habitat Modification n RESPONSE –River restoration n form, processes –River rehabilitation n mimic natural form –Habitat enhancement n cosmetic improvements STRATEGY ?

21. Criteria for selection n Low Existing Geomorphological Diversity n Moderate-High Stream Power n High Existing Modification

22. Criteria Used to Assess Rehabilitation Potential

23. Geomorphological Diversity l 0 l 1-4 l 5-9 l 10-14 l 15-19 l 20-30

24. Stream Power n Minimal n Very low n Low n Moderate n High n Very high

25. Habitat Modification l Pristine l Semi-natural l Predominately unmodified l Obviously modified l Significantly modified l Heavily/extensive modification

26. Applying the Work to the Field Fisheries interest in riffle rehabilitation first choice: River Weaver

27. Substrate Type % Gravel and/or Cobble l 0-10 l 10-20 l 20-30 l 30-40 l 40-60 l 60-80 l 80-100

29. Conclusions n Weaver has few natural riffles n Predominantly sand-bed river system n Recommend against introduction n Suggest alternative sites that are more suitable

30. Sites with Rehabilitation Potential l RHS Sites l Potential general rehabilitation sPotential rehabilitation for fisheries

31. Black Brook Site Prior to Rehabilitation

32. Black Brook Site Post- Rehabilitation (Artist’s Impression)

33. Work in Progress at the Black Brook Site

36. Treat problem at source

37. RHS Contribution to the Mersey Flood Alleviation Scheme n Flood Defence Aim –assess existing defences provide increased levels of service n Our aim –promote integrated river basin management –reduce environmental impacts of the scheme

38. Typical Section of Mersey in S. Manchester 100% Resectioned & bermed, straightened, widened, predominant glide, silty substrate

39. Problems at the site n Fine sediment problem – channel accumulation - loss of capacity – accumulation on berms and at bank toe - stability of embankments n Lack of Habitat Diversity – Homogenous bank habitat, limited flow type diversity, few in-channel features, regular heavy maintenance

40. Removing Fine Sediments From Banks and Berms

41. The Role of RHS n Fine sediment problem – Catchment audit to identify sediment sources – Suggest catchment management techniques to reduce inputs. n Flooding problem –Identify potential flood storage areas upstream

42. Sampling strategy n Random sample of 20% of classified river n Geomorphological inter-reach survey

43. Inter-reach fluvial audit n Quantity and type of erosion and deposition n Causes (natural or artificial) of erosion or deposition n Additional potential for wetland restoration?

44. Benefits n Flood Defence –Reduction of maintenance needs –Reduction of scheme design n Conservation –Reduction of environmental impact –Potential wetland restoration

45. Erosion

46. Site Based Analysis - The River Keekle n Headwaters of Keekle - planning application for open cast coal mine n Regional conservation designations, but habitat value of the site in a national context ?

47. Occurrence of Key RHS Habitat Features at the Keekle

48. Predicting species distribution

49. Assessing the County of Sussex for Watervole Habitat n S. Region Conservation staff requested details of occurrence and distribution of factors which comprise good watervole habitat n Factors were defined by S. Region, and mapped by the Lead Region Team

50. Habitat Suitability Variables n Suitability defined according to factors: – Slow flowing water – Steep/soft banks – Not heavily shaded – Extensive marginal vegetation – Land use is not heavily grazed – Simple banktop vegetation

51. Distribution of Habitat Variables l 0 variables l 1 variable l 2 variables l 3 variables l 4 variables

52. Findings n Unfortunately few sites with most or all of the required habitat variables n However S. Region Conservation staff confirmed that of the 6 sites with 3 or 4 variables present 4 had recorded watervole sightings

53. Project Developments n The information produced will now be used to consider – Habitat improvement work – Potential watervole introductions n Problem for reintroduction, and for RHS analysis - occurrence of Mink n Technique applicable to any species – similar habitat review for water shrews (national application)

54. Coarse Fisheries Application n Aim: to develop predictive tools to better target North East fisheries rolling programme –Identification of community types –Identification of community habitats –Prediction of community types according to n habitat features (RHS) n map-derived variables

55. Pilot Study on The River Nidd n Continuous fisheries and RHS surveys n Analysis of fish community distribution n Predictive models

56. Distribution of R. Nidd Coarse Fish Communities

57. Substrate Distribution on the Nidd

59. Coarse Fish Community Distribution in Yorkshire Rivers

60. Prediction of Coarse Fish Community Distribution According to Altitude and Distance from Source

61. Predicted Community Types in Yorkshire Rivers

62. Conclusion n Fish community distribution can be predicted from site data (RHS) n Fish community distribution can be predicted from Map data ø Prediction of species distribution?

63. The Native Crayfish n Endangered species whose distribution is limited by –competition by introduced alien species –fungal disease: the crayfish plague n Aim: –to predict habitat suitability for crayfish using RHS

64. Sample of combined RHS/Crayfish surveys

65. Use of RHS to Predict the Occurrence of the Native Crayfish n Pairing of existing RHS sites with crayfish data – Average distance between sites = 1.7km n Selection of a subset of variables –First selection - Chi-square & Mann-Whitney – Second selection using logistic regression

66. Crayfish Features with Positive and Negative Influences n MODEL SUCCESS: 95%

67. Three ecological dimensions n COVER –Exposed boulders n FOOD –Riffles –Tree shading, overhanging boughs n EROSION –Poached banks –Gravel/sand banks –Eroding cliffs –Reinforced toe

68. Discriminant Analysis on Crayfish Occurrence According to Transformed Altitude, Slope and Distance from Source

69. Model relevance and applicability

70. Implementing RHS n RHS has extensive national, regional, catchment and site based application n RHS is a multi-functional tool that can be used for delivering integrated river basin management

71. That’s all Folks !