River Restoration

Martin Janes

‘Environmental Management  of Rivers and Wetlands’• Complex ‘active’

landscape scale systems with 

multiple economic & social benefits.• Management needed due to human pressure:

1. Understand the system (is it broken?)2. Aid recovery (minimal intervention) 3. Reduce detrimental impacts (mitigation & change)4. Restore the lost/scarce –

process:habitat:ecology

River systems• Process driven dynamic system

– Hydrology input & transport (flow)– Sediment input & transport (erosion & deposition)

• Resulting physical & ecological habitat features– Valleys, floodplains, wetlands, & channels– Support wildlife flora & fauna (bugs, fish, humans)

• Resilient to change and disturbance (natural)– BUT Modification, over use, taming!, = poor 

understanding of components and complexity

UK  River ‘Taming’• Modified over many centuries. 

– Domesday Book  1086 

• More rapid over the last 100 yrs  (industrialization & machinery)

Due to:– land clearance/deforestation– milling– navigation– land drainage– flood protection– abstraction– urbanisation, – taming by engineers…

• 1998 report indicated 80% of UK  rivers have had part of their channel 

modified.

Resulted in:• extensive straightening

‐

– damaged wildlife habitats– reduced value of fisheries– reduced aesthetic appeal

• loss of floodplain wetlands

‐– reduced ability of the floodplain to 

provide economically viable  functions.

EU ‐ River managementEast Europe: 

Water pollution & Floods

South Europe:  Water Quan & Floods

North Europe:  Dams, hydro & e‐flows

West Europe: 

Flood risk & Habitat frag.

• Flood ‘Protection’

and ‘Defence’Channelisation, walls, culverts, pipes – local scale (problem or reach)

• Flood ‘Risk Management’Storage, capacity, and how this affects the river (catchment scale)

• Integration ‐

River Basin Management Land (soil) management, sustainable drainage systems, functioning 

floodplains, integrated planning policies, ecosystem services.  

Historic management

Working with Natural Processes

Habitat Enhancement & River Restoration

River restoration• Restore river catchment processes• Return physical features & habitat niches• Reconnect isolated habitats

• Within the constraints– complexity, land, money, built heritage, 

perception, ownership , water quality and  quantity....

Benefits• Biodiversity• Access to wildlife and nature• Flood risk management• Climate change resilience• Sustainable planning and redevelopment• Reduced maintenance cost• Safety

Drivers for change• European Directives

– Urban Wastewater treatment Directive (1991)– Habitats and Species Directive (1992) – Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000)– Floods Directive (2007)

• National Poilcy– Espace de Liberté

(France)

– Room for the River (Netherlands)– Making Space for Water (Eng & Wales)– Natural Flood Management (Scotland)– Env. River Enhancement Prog. (Ireland)

• Other global and regional drivers– Climate change (resilience), economy (fishing),..

Targeted at Aquatic Ecosystem River Quality;

Prevents Further ‘deterioration’;

Enhance Aquatic Ecosystem Quality through a program of measures (PoM);

Catchment scale river basin planning (RBMP’s);

Monitoring of compliance;

Penalties for failure;

Cyclical Implementation - by 2015, 2021, 2027on 6 year ‘cycles’.

WF Directive

Restoration of degraded habitats• Good Ecological Status 

(GES)For all watercourses not 

impacted severely, or  serving an overiding 

economic/public service

• Good (Maximum) Ecological  Potential (GEP/MEP))

For all watercourses  designated ‘Heavily 

Modified’, or ‘Artificial’Best compromise (ecol. vs. 

needs of society)  

Monitoring and assessment

Multiple objective  River Restoration Schemes

R. Skerne Darlington

In1994UrbanUK River RestorationProject. £1Mdemonstration.

River Skjern, DenmarkLate 60’s Denmark’s largest land drainage scheme,

4000ha wetlands lost. Deepened, straightened, embanked and pump-drained ……………………………………..……………………2004 cost £22M.

A sustainable solution. 1997, an environmental ‘U’-turn. Act of Parliament to restore the meandering river and 2200ha of wetands

2004 cost of £25M.

Before: Secondary drainage channel

Total earth works: 3,000,000 m3

R. Skjern ready to bend again

Flood Risk Management

Making “Room for the River”

in The Netherlands

City of Arnhem

Satellite image 1995

Urban bottleneck

Urban Development Arnhem 1830-2000

1830 2000

Dike relocation of Bakenhof (nearArnhem)

The Bakenhof area: Natural ‘playground’

floodplain

River Quaggy, Chinbrook Meadows

Quaggy  ‐ a river released

400m concrete removed

Quaggy ‐ for flood storage

Historic water meadows restored

Quaggy – for education

Quaggy ‐ for enjoyment

Residents/users:Project improved the park 89%Less anti social behaviour 56%

Bayerisches Landesamtfür WasserwirtschaftRestoration of the Isar River in Munich --- flood control, ecology and

recreation

Urban Re‐development

River Colne, Staines, London

River MardenDesigned to physical 

forms defined by  river processes

Include native habitat  types to colonise

Accessible and visible  to users and public

• Flood risk….  & Landscape, Habitat, Amenity,  Public pride.

Simulate form & process in a constrained location

Cheong Gye Cheon Restoration Project, Seoul

5.8km, 3 years to completion in 2005. [US$ 280Mil]

Multiple benefitsRiver Brent, North London

Design informed by geomorphology to allow for a ‘semi-natural’ river form with active fluvial process in a constrained urban flood storage and amenity parkland environment

August 1998

March 2004

July 2003

Concrete 2002

July 2009

May 2005

March 2003June 2006

Social impactUrban space,Accessibility,Quality of life,Ownership, Social justice.

Fisheries and Biodiversity

Habitat & ecology• catchment scale

– Ecosystem health, repopulationof restored watercourse

• Reach scale– Pools & riffles and the life cycle of fish

• Meso scale– Individual habitat niches

Biodiversity is likely to be greatest in areas of high  morphological diversity

Witham, Lincolnshire• Defunct weir• Fisheries problem• Siltation• Disrupting natural 

flow regime

• Return free passage• Remove eyesore• Restore natural functions

Gravel ‘riffle’

New Forest MiresSome past realignment, but old 

channels still existing in the  woodlands.

Restore the natural function of  these small systems.

Benefits for biodiversity.

Mire restoration has been very  successful, reducing runoff by 

infilling the drainage channels. 

Gravel and clay fill material raising the bed to previous levels [2006]

Highland Water. Structure ruined by poor management [2002]

London Rivers Action PlanLaunched Jan 2009 by the Mayor of 

London’s Office.

To help step up the rate of river  restoration throughout the City 

Target is to restore 15km of river by  2015 

Highlighting opportunities and  providing practical guidance to 

local authorities, developers, Non  Government Organisations and 

community groups

www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php 

SAC River Restoration Plans• England based Protected Areas (Habs Dir)

– 47 ‘SSSI rivers’

to favourable condition ‐

2010.– Protected areas (Habs Dir and WFD) where 

‘restoration measures’

have been identified ‐ 2015

– 50 year plan for physical restoration• Remove structures, embankments, interruptions to 

hydromorphic and ecological processes• Based on walk over survey of morphology & ecology• Long term commitment & for ££

implementation

Current Initiatives• Push towards ‘Natural Flood Management’

–

Scotland, N. Ireland and England & Wales– POST seminar on Tuesday – NFM in England

• Based on ‘working with natural processes’

from the Pitt  Review of 2007 flooding – report published Tuesday.

• Judicial Review treat in late 2010 – RBMP’s– Defra announce £112M to bring waterbodies to 

GES (EA £9M pa, NE £6Mpa, CRF £8Mpa – Jan ‘12.

• Defra ‘catchment approach’

to water quality– 25 pilot ‘local engagement’

projects ‐

Dec ‘11

Conclusions• River restoration considers the whole river ‘system’;• Multiple, complex interlinkages of biotic and abiotic factors;• Restoration for WHAT? – define targeted measurable 

objectives for clarity and assessing outcomes;• Planning at the catchment scale is essential to maximise the 

impact of any site or reach scale works;• River managers working with, not against, the natural system 

(aiding recovery and WwNP & Room for the River);• Restoring the ability of a river to function naturally (process)

has EU policy backing (Habs, WFD and Floods Dir’s);• Large scale demonstration projects can help develop scientific 

and professional expertise, and give confidence to policy  makers and the public.

RESTORE: Communicating  best practice in river restoration

€1.8m, 50% EU LIFE+6 Partners, 2010 ‐

2013

4 Regions, 21 Countries

RESTORE common themesCosts and benefits• Long term economic benefits• Costing river restoration• Sourcing funding

What do we mean by RR• What is river restoration• How to undertake river restoration

Drivers through directives• Contribution to flood risk reduction• Contribution to increased biodiversity• How to meet WFD RR targets• Climate change adaptation• Renewable energy conflicts

People and communities• Integrating with urban planning• Social and cultural wellbeing

Regional issues and concerns

East• Access to funds and information, 

few networks, promote 

understanding

South• Only little progress outside 

France, issues of ephemeral rivers, 

water quality, bioengineering vs 

RR

West• Concept understood, needs 

evidence, funding, guidance,  

political & planning buy‐in, public 

safety.

North• Fisheries and hydropower drivers, 

mixed levels of networks in 

operation.

3 years ‐ 3 stages• Stage 1 – information collection and collation.  What exists as 

best practice river restoration & implementation and how is  this needed by different countries?

• Stage 2 –

engagement.  Building the networks of policy  makers, river basin managers and practitioners and forming 

the information resource.

• Stage 3 –

Knowledge transfer. Web based database tool

for  information sharing, long‐term continuation through the 

European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR).

Output

‐

Review of EU Policy Drivers

A demand for river restoration tools and methods...• Legislative Drivers:

– Habitats, Floods, Water Framework directives– UN BioD Plan, Rural Development Prog., CC Adaptation & 

Land Use Planning policies.

• Supporting Legislation– CAP, Nitrates & Groundwater directives

But deterioration of habitats despite these drivers. => Difficulties in overcoming obstacles to 

implementation for river restoration

Barriers and Constraints