The Importance of Project Appraisal in River Restoration

Churchill Fellowship Report 2008 Damien Nixon

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................2 1 Background ........................................................................3 2 The Chesapeake ................................................................5 3 California ............................................................................7 4 Pacific Northwest ............................................................. 12 5 Australia ........................................................................... 14 6 Summary and Lessons Learned ....................................... 18

1

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

Acknowledgements Firstly I‟d like to express my appreciation for the time, hospitality and co operation provided by all of my hosts throughout my Fellowship:In the USA:- Dr Margaret Palmer and Dr Filosso Solange from the Chesapeake Biological laboratory, University of Maryland; Eric Michelson and Keith Underwood of Underwood & Associates, Annapolis; Professor Mathias Kondolf, Dr Shannah Anderson and Kate Tollefson from the University of California, Berkeley; Mike Vukman, Kristen Quay and Phil Stevens of the Urban Creeks Council, Berkeley; Rolland Atkins of Golder Associates, Vancouver Island, and; Bernadette Graham Hudson from the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Washington. In Australia:- Dr Siwan Lovett of the Australian River Restoration Centre, ACT; Matt Barwick of the Native Fish Strategy, Murray-Darling Basin Commission; Dr Andrew Storey from the University of Western Australia, and; Agnidhar Bhandari, Krish Seewraj, Frances D‟Souza, Nadia Beale and Antonietta Torre from the Department of Water, Government of Western Australia. And finally I would like to thank the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust for selecting me for this incredible Fellowship.

2

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

1 Background The aim of this fellowship was to assess the various monitoring techniques that are applied to river restoration projects undertaken in North America and Australia, with the intention of gaining valuable knowledge, and learning innovative methods that could be applied to projects in the UK. The definition of river restoration is widely disputed. Restoration literally means to restore back to an original state. However, it is often impossible to identify a river system‟s original state, particularly in developed countries such as the UK where anthropogenic activities, incurred over a number of centuries, have resulted in significant modification, degradation and simplification of our aquatic systems. A more appropriate terminological reference that is often touted in the literature and which is more suited to UK rivers, is “Rehabilitation”. However to avoid confusion throughout this report, I will refer to the sites that I visited as restoration or restored sites unless specifically stated otherwise. River restoration can be initiated by a number of different factors that including, among others, flood alleviation and conversely, drought protection; poor species and habitat diversity, recreational needs, water quality and property development. I originally set out with the intention of investigating the appraisal techniques employed to assess river restoration projects which had been initiated from a fisheries perspective. However, as most river restoration projects are required to demonstrate positive ecological impacts, I found myself visiting an assortment of schemes. These included storm water regenerative conveyance systems targeting harmful contaminants, erosion control projects, urban drainage improvements, restoration of riparian vegetation, floodplain reconnection and projects that were forced upon local governments by natural events, for example volcanic eruptions that can significantly impact sediment input to surrounding aquatic ecosystems. My recent freshwater fisheries background, the stimulus behind my Fellowship proposal, has involved significant salmonid monitoring and habitat restoration work that has provided me with an excellent grounding in European and British conservation legislation. In the northern hemisphere migratory fish species such as salmonids, eels and lamprey and their habitats are highly valued and protected. In the UK protection is afforded to these species by legislation such as the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, Habitats Directive and subsequent Conservation Regulations and Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPS). These legislative requirements provide important vehicles which can influence the initiation of river restoration schemes. Potentially the most important piece of recent legislation that has driven river restoration in the UK is the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD states that European rivers are to reach a good ecological status, or good ecological potential depending on the level of river modification, by 2015. Australian and American legislation is somewhat more intricate due to the size of each country and the segregation into states and territories, each larger than the UK, and possessing their own legislation. In addition to the states and territories there is also the presence of indigenous communities with historic practices that 3

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust have to be considered in any legislation, as many of the practices are fundamental to maintaining traditions. For example in Australia, the first major national initiative to identify the importance of river management was the implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy in 1990 that pre dated the Australian Water Resources Fund and Research Advisory Committee. This initiative was shortly followed by the Intergovernmental Ecologically Sustainable Development Strategy and the subsequent formation of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) in 1993, and the National Heritage Trust in 1997. In 1992 the Commonwealth Endangered Species Act afforded protection to the list of endangered species and habitats within Schedule 1 and 2 respectively. However, Australia‟s most central piece of environmental legislation was enacted in 2000 in the form of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the associated Regulations which afford protection to threatened species and ecological communities. Although national legislation is in place to protect species and ecological communities, individual states and territories, until recently, implemented their own legislation for managing land and water resources. This caused major problems in catchments such as the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) where these rivers and their associated tributaries flow through a number of states and territories. Central states such as NSW and ACT (in respect to the MDB) abstract more water than the upper state (Queensland) leaving South Australia with what ever remains. During periods of drought it has been necessary to dredge between the Murray mouth and the Coorong (a long shallow lagoon that connects the River Murray to the sea) to actually maintain connectivity with the sea! This major issue is being addressed, and in 2004 an intergovernmental agreement was signed between all states (except Western Australia and Tasmania) and the Australian government on the National Water Initiative. This initiative led to the National Water Commission (NWC) and the subsequent Commonwealth Water Act 2007 that predominantly enforce the management of the water resources in the MDB and other national water resource interests. American legislation is equally, if not more complex, with fifty two states that enact their own legislation, in comparison to the five divisions in Australia. On a national scale a number of environmental Acts have been enacted, the most important piece of legislation over the last half a century was the Clean Water Act 1972 (CWA) that aimed to reduce and eliminate water pollution by 1985. This was supported by the Water Quality Act in 1987, however the excellent progress that was made in the 1970s, 1980s, and to an extent, the 1990s in cleaning up America‟s waters, suffered a notable relapse in recent years, with studies indicating that America‟s national waters are no longer offered the full CWA protection due to the unclear jurisdiction of the Act. This lack of clarity has resulted in excess of 500 cases being dropped, essentially letting polluters off the hook, with waters and associated flora and fauna suffering as a consequence. This issue is currently being addressed with the proposition of a new piece of legislation, the Clean Water Restoration Act 2009 that aims to restore the 4

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust protection once afforded by the CWA. Other key pieces of legislation that aim to protect aquatic habitats and water quality include the Endangered Species Act 1973 that provides for the protection of ecosystems on which endangered species depend; the Water Resources Development Act 2007 that authorises flood control, navigation, and environmental projects and studies carried out by the United States Army Corps of Engineers; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act; and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. Due to their geographic locations, the two countries that I visited were in different seasons, had dissimilar climates and very different flora and fauna. Although the ecosystems are unalike in these respects, the pressures and stresses that impact upon their riverine systems are not so dissimilar. European settlement in both countries has resulted in anthropogenic activities such as deforestation, dredging, damming, and channelisation. These activities can affect river hydrology, bank erosion, sedimentation rates, floodplain connectivity and species connectivity and biodiversity. The comparable environmental pressures and stresses, observed on European rivers, have resulted in similar river restoration concepts being applied. Examples include the reintroduction of large woody debris (LWD) into the systems; removal of weirs or dams to reconnect isolated populations; the reconnection of floodplains to mitigate against flooding whilst increasing habitat diversity; and where possible the opening up of culverts (daylighting) that may reestablish historic streams and river systems, which often create aesthetically pleasing and ecologically diverse urban habitats. Due to the vast scale of their river catchments and the extreme seasonal variations in flow and temperature that result in flash floods and extended droughts, the general size and complexity of the projects in America and Australia tend to be significantly larger. This environmental diversity subsequently requires practiced restoration concepts to be adapted and tailored to the countries‟ specific environments. However, the monitoring techniques that are applied to the restoration projects are most likely to be universal and applicable to almost any river restoration project.

2 The Chesapeake The first stop of my Fellowship was Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay where I was kindly hosted by the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL). The Chesapeake is the largest estuary in the United States, fed by over 100,000 rivers and streams with its watershed encompassing six states - Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and the whole District of Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay watershed has become heavily polluted through human activities, with the main culprit being excessive nutrient enrichment that can cause harmful algal blooms (HAB‟s). HAB‟s subsequently reduce dissolved oxygen within the water column to levels that can be fatal to the bay‟s biota, particularly fish and shellfish. The most predominant nutrients entering the Bay are nitrogen and phosphorous with nitrogen pollution being the most serious threat. Each year polluting nitrogen, from point source discharges such as sewage treatment works (STW‟s) and non point source discharges such as sceptic tanks, road runoff and fertilizers contribute approximately 135 million 5

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust kilograms of nitrogen into the bay each year thus prompting a reduction target of 50 million kgyr-1 as outlined in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement 1. The CBL is a leader in the evaluation of stream ecosystem functions and restoration effectiveness and has carried out studies to evaluate the potential of stream restoration to enhance nitrogen removal in the Chesapeake tributaries. CBL conducted a scientific study of eight Maryland streams measuring the nitrogen and total suspended solid loads using an input/output mass balance approach. Six of the selected sites had been restored, with two having been restored by a local practitioner using a regenerative conveyance technique. Scientific studies and monitoring data collected to date indicate only two of the projects, Howard's Branch on Severn Run in Millersville and the Wilelinor Stream Valley outside Annapolis, have produced a reduction in nitrogen levels. Both were streams restored using the regenerative concept. Howards Branch was a stream heavily eroded through storm water flows with no riparian vegetation. Using the regenerative approach, strategically positioning pools and weirs constructed on a bed of sand and a geotechnical membrane, the eroded stream was reconnected with its floodplain and transformed into a diverse wetland. In addition to the pools and weirs, a planting program was implemented to assist in the filtration process. Native species such as Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), Large Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), and LowBush Blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), were included, with woody debris added to the pools to create habitat diversity and stimulate the natural processes that aids nitrogen uptake. A similar approach was adopted at Wilenor Stream Valley where urbanisation and a subsequent increase in impervious surfaces had resulted in excessive flows, and therefore increased nutrients, entering the valley. Using the regenerative approach the stream has become a diverse, nitrogen removing habitat. With the systems designed to handle a 1 in 100 year storm water event, it is evident that this approach has huge potential in providing an aesthetically pleasing conveyance system, which encourages natural ecological processes to reduce contaminants and improve water quality.

1

Chesapeake Bay Foundation - 2007 State of the Bay Report

6

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

Established (left) and under construction (right) Regenerative Conveyance Systems, as designed by Underwood and Associates, illustrating the pools, parabolic weirs, woody debris and native planting that encourages the retention of stormwater flows and subsequent uptake of anthropogenic pollutants prior to the flow reaching the Chesapeake.

3 California The second stage of my Fellowship took me to the western side of America where I was kindly allowed to participate on a field course held at the Sagehen Field Station near Truckee. The field course, run by the University of California, educates professionals from practitioners to academics, in the geomorphic and ecological fundamentals that can be observed in river and stream restoration. The course involved a number of visits to restoration sites around the Lake Tahoe catchment providing an excellent opportunity to learn about current monitoring of restoration projects, whilst gaining an insight into practitioners‟ thoughts about the importance of project evaluation. Visits included a variety of sites that were at different stages of restoration with some still at the inception stage and others such as the McCarran Ranch completed approximately two years ago. Our first site visit was to Blackwood Creek, one of the sixty three streams that feed into Lake Tahoe and one of the highest sediment producers. Blackwood Creek is located on the Lake‟s west shore and is a high energy, seasonally flowing creek that has been subjected to a number of anthropogenic activities over the years, including gravel mining, logging practices, channel diversions and straightening, and fish pass construction and later demolition. These activities have resulted in sections of Blackwood Creek becoming disconnected from the floodplain. This disconnection has subsequently resulted in large quantities of sediment and nutrients flowing into Lake Tahoe, contributing to the demise of Lake Tahoe‟s famed water clarity. In the 1960s a Secchi disk could be measured up to a depth of ~30 m. Over the

7

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust years the water clarity has decreased by approximately two thirds and today a Secchi disk is barely visible at 10 m. The course co-ordinators provided the delegates with detailed information about the history of Blackwood Creek, arming us with aerial photographs dating back to the 1930s, longitudinal profiles and general information. With this information at hand we were asked to identify the current environmental issues, the constraints and opportunities relating to a specific reach, and to propose how these identified issues might be resolved. For example what restoration techniques could be used and why? As Blackwood Creek was dry during the time of the visit we were able to visualise how the fluvial processes have impacted the channel and to identify the original channels within the system, in addition to other features such as incised banks, erosion and deposition sites. As with many other anthropogenically degraded systems in the USA, Blackwood Creek has a recent industrial history. Gravel quarrying and logging practices have seen the main channel diverted into a straightened section of a bypass channel. These relatively recent impacts could be observed from historic aerial photographs that illustrated former channel morphologies and anthropogenic activities. The previous main channel is still visibly intact and exhibits many of the channel morphologies that we relate to natural systems such as sinuosity, bank/width ratios and stabilising characteristics. Phase 3B of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Project; the Blackwood Creek Phase, is set to be completed in 2009. This will involve the re-establishment of original channel sections, aiming to reconnect approximately 13 acres of floodplain which will subsequently lead to increased sediment drop out, reducing fine sediment and nutrients reaching the Lake, whilst also encouraging riparian vegetation growth and increased habitat and species biodiversity.

Blackwood Creek during summer months. Note the straightened channel, the scoured gravel/cobbles, steep incised bank (left photo) and engineered woody debris (right photo).

8

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Another restoration site, McCarran Ranch on the Lower Truckee River, was of particular interest. This major multi-partner project, managed by the Nature Conservancy, had restored approximately 1 mile of the Truckee River to reconnect the floodplain and create a valuable wetland habitat more akin to pre settlement times. The Lower Truckee River has been subject to significant anthropogenic influence since settlers moved to the area in the mid 1800s with activities that include the harvesting of the riparian woodland to make space for agricultural practices, river straightening and dredging. These practices have resulted in a significant loss in ecological function with the decimation of up to 90% of riparian forest, loss of native fish species and an approximate 40% loss in bird species richness. This site provides an excellent opportunity to monitor restoration effectiveness due to the historic data and knowledge of the activities relating to the site. As early as 1868, an ornithologist named Robert Ridgeway carried out a careful study of the river‟s bird population, recording 107 species. In the summers of 1972-1976, prior to any improvements being carried out on the river, the populations were re-surveyed. The results showed the presence of only 65 species. In addition to the massive reduction in riparian bird populations, the lowering of the water table and diversion of flows limited the access for migratory fish species to potential spawning habitat within the river, resulting in the loss of the federally protected Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) and the Cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus). The restoration involved raising the river bed level, adding a meander to a straightened section and narrowing the river from approximately 60m to 30m. These measures forced the river to effectively back up as a result of increased friction between the river and the increased channel complexity. Under certain flow regimes the river then over tops the banks and reconnects with the floodplain. In addition to the modifications to the channel width and depth, backwaters (shallow fingers of water that spur off the main river, connecting to the main river at the start of a meander) were also created to increase habitat availability. Backwaters provide valuable refuge for juvenile fish and other species such as the leopard frog. A planting strategy was also implemented, encouraging riparian vegetation and aquatic species to recolonise. The project had been completed for approximately 2 years prior to my visit and within this time the project has demonstrated a remarkable recovery of the river‟s flora and fauna. An ongoing monitoring plan is being managed by the Nature Conservancy, with assistance from local academic affiliations with the collection of scientifically sound data that will provide a robust appraisal of the project objectives.

9

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

McCarran Ranch restoration illustrating the recovering riparian vegetation and habitat (inset picture taken shortly after restoration work was carried out in 2003)

In contrast to the large restoration projects in the stunning rural settings of eastern California and Nevada, I also had the opportunity to visit a number of urban restoration sites in San Francisco. The University of California, Berkeley, carried out 40 post project appraisals (PPAs) of restored streams that were completed between 1995 and 2006, 22 of which were urban restoration projects. The PPAs were commissioned by the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) and were evaluated by using six assessment components:Success Criteria, Baseline Surveys, Design Rationale, Design Drawings, As-Built Drawings and Monitoring Programmes. The appraisals highlighted the lack of formal documentation and evaluation data, additionally, a number of the restored sites had no set or measurable objectives. Any restoration project that has no clear measurable objectives is likely to fail in delivering its proposed aims. This lack of information and project structure was apparent throughout my Fellowship, particularly on early restoration projects. Fortunately today, practitioners generally follow a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time based) approach to managing projects. This ensures that the project delivers what it sets out to achieve within the allocated timeframe, thus reducing the risk of costs escalating from unforeseen issues. Unfortunately, even though we make the effort to set measurable objectives, very few projects are ever subjected to a PPA. Undoubtedly, the majority of today‟s restoration projects appear aesthetically beneficial to local fauna and flora, but are they? Have the projects actually delivered their set objectives? 10

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust The Urban Creeks Council (UCC), set up in 1982, has a mission to preserve, protect, and restore Californian urban streams and their riparian habitats. The team at UCC kindly agreed to take time out of their busy schedule to show me around some of the restoration projects that were assessed in the previously mentioned NRRSS study. One of these - Strawberry Creek, conveniently located behind the Urban Creeks Council office - was the first urban creek to be reopened to the daylight in the San Francisco Bay area. The Creek was culverted below a railway line until 1983 when construction work began. Prior to daylighting the Creek had no ecological value, and although left to its own devices with no management, the restored Creek and surrounding parkland appears to be healthy, with a noticeable increase in diversity compared to that expected within a concrete pipe. In 2007 a post project behavioural study was carried out on the Creek and park to observe the different types of visitors utilising the facility. Observations from the study included jogging, sitting, children playing, cycling and a number of users taking time to observe the restored site from the pedestrian bridge spanning the Creek. During the study a number of fish were observed in the restored stretch and a number of riparian vegetation species were also observed. Unfortunately due to the lack of habitat management the recreational area has become slightly run down, with the area frequently used by a number of homeless people making it less appealing for everyday recreational users. A second site, Codornices Creek, was a project developed to assist in the recovery of the native Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) population. From the Codornices Creek Watershed Restoration Action Plan Phase 1 (CCWRAP-1), the main constraints that were identified were the presence of a 3ft vertical obstruction to fish passage in the form of a box culvert below a bridge that was impassable to migrating fish and significant bank instability and erosion. Prior to any works being carried out there were no records of Steelhead trout present above the obstruction. In addition to the obstruction and erosion, the surrounding area is highly urbanised with a high percentage of impervious surfaces that prevent percolation of stormwater runoff to the ground. These impervious surfaces cause non point source pollution such as elevated levels of nitrates and polycyclic-aromatic-hydrocarbons (PAH‟s) that can be transported directly into the creek and subsequently the Bay. These contaminants can detrimentally impact freshwater flora and fauna, adding an additional environmental limiting factor for Codornices Creek fish populations. A detailed monitoring plan was drawn up to aid the delivery of CCWRAP-2, the second phase that addressed the constraints identified in the CCWRAP-1. The monitoring plan targeted the elements identified in CCWRAP-1, specifically the water quality components that have the potential to negatively impact salmonid habitat and population rehabilitation; the habitats that are suitable for salmonids; and quantitative fish population data. To resolve the fish passage issue a stepped pool approach was adopted to grade the creek up to the crest of the weir, subsequently providing passage to migratory fish. In addition to the stepped pools, bank re-profiling and a planting strategy were implemented to address the bank instability issue and reduce the threat of erosion. Although no structured fisheries monitoring had been undertaken on the 11

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Creek at the time of my visit, spawning Steelhead trout had been observed, and filmed, within the restored stretch with Steelhead fry observed in each of the stepped pools approximately six months after the work was completed in 2007. The principle objective of this work was to alleviate fish population connectivity issues. To assess the project objectives, baseline fisheries‟ monitoring was carried out prior to the works and post project fisheries monitoring, to be done in the near future, will provide quantitative evidence to support the initial visual observations. Future water quality monitoring and assessments of the reprofiled bank will also aid in the appraisal of the projects objectives.

4 Pacific Northwest From California I travelled to the stunning Pacific Northwest, home to five different species of salmon, the Pacific Northwest Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (Oncorhynchus keta). Every year these species make the incredible migration from feeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean to the exact head waters of local rivers where they were born, and where they subsequently spawn each year. Numerous projects, initiatives and funding boards are set up to protect the native salmon species, with some major projects dwarfing those carried out in the UK. It was here, in Washington State that I was invited to sit in on a Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) technical advisory group (TAG) meeting. The LCFRB is a local watershed group known as a „Lead Entity‟, that consists of a coordinator and committee derived of technical experts and local citizens. The LCFRB examines and prioritises proposed projects that aim to restore or protect salmon habitat in the Lower Columbia catchment. Once the proposed projects have been assessed and the TAG feel the project complies with the set criteria, the projects are then submitted to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) for funding consideration. The SRFB was set up by the state in 1999 to provide funds for valuable habitat works and since the board‟s formation, over 900 projects have been funded. The diverse expertise within the TAG ensures a thorough, holistic assessment of the proposed projects so they stand the best chance of successfully securing appropriate funding from the SRFB, and deliver the „biggest bang for their buck‟. One surprising piece of information that I gained from the meeting is that current SFRB policy dictates that if projects are to secure funding, no expense for monitoring is allowed. For any project that includes a monitoring component, the relevant project would need to seek funding from an alternative source. Funds are available for restoration monitoring through a number of other funding sources, which include the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) (who require monitoring to be incorporated into all supported projects), the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), Community Salmon Fund, and the PacifiCorp (energy supplier) Aquatics Fund. This is not to say that the SFRB disagrees with monitoring, as it is recognised by the SFRB and Lead Entities such as the LCFRB, that monitoring is essential to determine if restoration projects successfully deliver their proposed aims. Unfortunately, unless the SFRB policy changes, all future projects that are funded by them will still be carried out 12

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust without robust monitoring. However, given the expertise of the Lead Entity TAGs, it can be assumed, with a certain level of confidence, that the approved projects will most likely deliver their set objectives. The LCFRB are interested in collating data that will assist in answering important questions such as:Was the project completed as per the approved design? Did the project achieve its aims? Did it achieve the desired impact? Presently, the only information that the LCFRB receives about project outcomes is received from the actual project sponsors. This information is generally not detailed enough to make any robust scientific assumptions or any subsequent informed decisions. To tackle this issue the LCFRB are developing a system that will allow important project metrics to be tracked so that such questions can be answered. However, for the system to deliver its objectives, the required project metrics need to be in place and adhered to by the project sponsors. If successfully implemented, this system will provide the LCFRB with a vehicle from which to carry out future evaluation of restoration projects.

ELJ‟s fixed direct to the bare bedrock of the upper Washougal in an attempt to trap sediment, encourage riparian growth and re-establish channel heterogeneity that has been stripped down to the channels bedrock as a result of intensive logging over the last century.

As to be expected in such a large and spectacular country the river systems are equally impressive (River Columbia – Front Cover). Unfortunately, in such a 13

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust developed country, these rivers and their tributaries are subject to equally large environmental impacts that call for extreme solutions, for example the installation of Engineered Log Jams (ELJ‟s) as pictured above.

5 Australia After leaving America I crossed the Pacific to Brisbane where I attended the 11 th International Riversymposium, „A Future of Extremes‟. The conference provided an excellent insight into how our changing climate is impacting our rivers, with speakers presenting their various theories, projects and results. There were a number of interesting and informative presentations that addressed international climate related issues, none more so than the UK‟s Mersey River Case Study. The Mersey River was the first project to receive the internationally recognised Thiess Riverprize in 1999 for the work carried out to restore one of the worst polluted rivers in the UK. A very entertaining presentation, highlighting critical success factors of the campaign and what challenges lay ahead over the next twenty five years, was a delightful end to the first day‟s proceedings. The diversity of the presentations throughout the conference was refreshing, and included talks on the impacts of river activities on coral reef resilience, climate change on African fisheries production, and the importance of adaptative management of European rivers in response to climate change. The number of trade stands provided an excellent opportunity to network and to gather useful information on Australian river projects and the various monitoring strategies and practices that are underway by government and non government organisations. Although the sessions did not focus specifically on project monitoring, the majority of the presentations that I attended, that had involvement with habitat works, employed some variation of before and after techniques to assess project success. Examples of these techniques included fixed point photography, aerial photography, satellite imagery and flora and fauna surveys that varied in detail and scientific robustness. The Murray Darling Basin (MDB) featured predominantly throughout the conference, unsurprisingly as it is one of Australia's largest drainage divisions and covers one-seventh of the continent (approximately 1 million square kilometers). The Basin includes the three largest rivers in Australia - the Murray River, the Darling River and the Murrumbidgee River - and is subsequently involved with the largest integrated catchment management plan in the world. Because of its history and its prominence within the Australian landscape, a feature session was dedicated to the MDB, highlighting the work that is being carried out in response to the severe drought and the changing climate that has impacted the Basin. The feature session was presented by the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) with presentations on river health assessments in the MDB, the impacts of climate change on native fish populations, market dynamics, agriculture and the lessons learned in maintaining transborder programs. I had a particular interest in this session as I was shortly to meet up with representatives from the MDBC at a Native Fish Forum being held in Canberra the following week. One particular presentation focussed on the assessment of river health in the MDB. The assessment of the MDB is based on fisheries, 14

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust hydrology and macro invertebrate data with the fisheries component, the Fish Condition Index, appearing to be the equivalent of the UK‟s Fish Classification Index. The Fish Condition Index is based on thirteen metrics derived from field data, thus providing a robust classification tool. This could be influential in the development of the UK‟s classification index as the UK strives to meet the Water Framework Directive (WFD) requirement that rivers reach good ecological status by 2015. In addition to attending the MDBC Native Fish Strategy Forum, Canberra provided me with the opportunity for an informal chat with Dr Siwan Lovett, an Australian Winston Churchill Fellow who travelled to the UK to investigate the feasibility of establishing an Australian Centre for River Restoration. Dr Lovett has been instrumental in setting up the Australian River Restoration Centre, and aims to focus on stakeholder engagement and the interpretation of technical information to guide river managers, local communities and other groups in protecting, enhancing and improving Australia‟s riverine environments. Other sessions at the Forum covered a number of topics that included drought and climate change, management of in channel structures, habitat and modelling, protection of native and threatened species and management of fish stocks. The session that interested me most however, was a session dedicated to monitoring performance and more specifically a presentation on Demonstration Reach Monitoring. The MDBC has set up a Framework specifically to assess restored reaches within the MDB. The framework takes a holistic approach, targeting the rehabilitation of complete fish assemblages rather than individual species, employing a number of intervention measures simultaneously and monitoring their effectiveness. During the Forum it was again identified that inadequate funding, timescales, pre project baseline data and suitable control sites have historically limited the evaluation process. This is an area on which the MDBC has focussed, investigating various intervention measures, modelling, trends and monitoring timescales to ensure that their restoration projects are underpinned by robust science. To achieve this level of monitoring the MDBC allocates half of its demonstration reach investment into monitoring and evaluation, and has dedicated river scientists focussing on demonstration reach restoration. My final destination took me to Western Australia (WA) where I visited several urban restoration sites in Perth before setting off to visit a number of sites in the Margaret River region. While in Perth, I was invited to the bi-annual River Rats meeting, a Government sub division of the Department of Water (DoW) that is involved with the management of rivers in the southwest. Prior to arriving in WA, I was asked by the DoW if I would like to share my Fellowship experiences via a presentation in the River Rats meeting. This provided me with an excellent opportunity to remind my Australian colleagues of the recent Olympic Gold medal table, whilst also disseminating what I had learned the American leg of my Fellowship. The meeting also included another presentation on river restoration in south west Western Australia, the mapping of obstructions to fish passage and fishways projects, and a regional round up providing me with an interesting snapshot of projects undertaken by the WA government in recent years. 15

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust In addition to the River Rats meeting I also spent a day with Dr Andrew Storey of the University of Western Australia who showed me around a number of habitat restoration projects in Perth. One site - Liege Street wetland creation project- is a partnership project that involved the creation of an artificial wetland that mimics natural wetland functions, filtering stormwater runoff through retention ponds before it passes into the Canning River, a major tributary of the Swan River. Another site, Bannister Creek „Living stream‟ project was the first urban drain to be restored into a living stream. Bannister Creek was originally a series of wetlands modified into a drain system in 1979. As with most urban drains built in this period, the main aim was to convey flow away from urbanisation as rapidly as possible through a trapezoidal concrete channel. These systems often cause problems further down stream and can cause flooding, erosion, excessive sediment transport or pollutants, all of which negatively impact the stream flora and fauna. Unfortunately, even today we still see versions of this technique being practiced through the dredging and removal of in-channel vegetation in an attempt to convey water away from vulnerable areas as quickly as possible. In some cases this is vital in protecting crucial infrastructure and residential properties. However, there are many cases where this is unnecessary, and localised flooding of fields could benefit vulnerable areas further downstream through retention of flood waters on the flood plains, whilst also protecting the ecological function of the system.

Downstream culvert, the restoration stretch and the upstream culvert of Bannister Creek, illustrating how an urban drain can become a thriving living stream in a distance of only 350 m.

The Bannister Creek project involved the re-profiling of banks with the removal of 13,000 m3 of spoil, reshaping of the channel and the implementation of a planting plan to encourage riparian recolonisation. As this project was the first of its kind in WA it has been carefully monitored over the years to establish resilience to flooding, any changes in habitat diversity and for the general maintenance of the restored site. Monitoring methods - including fixed point photography and flora and fauna surveys - have demonstrated a significant increase in habitat diversity with the number of macro invertebrate taxa present post works. Macro invertebrate numbers have increased by almost a third in comparison to that monitored pre works. Shortly after the stretch had been completed the living stream withstood a 16

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust major storm event, carrying the increased flow with no significant damage to the works or adjacent infrastructure. In contrast, a section of concrete trapezoidal channel immediately upstream of the restoration site was significantly damaged by the same event. From Perth, the DoW took me south towards the Margaret River region which is renowned for quality wines and surfing. The native fish species in the south west river systems are a total contrast to those found further north or in the eastern states, with only ten native fish species being present, eight of which are endemic to the area. Within the Margaret River system only six of these endemic species are found, none of which grow more than 15 cm in length. Numerous weirs located within the Margaret River catchment, which provide water resources predominantly for the vineyards and other agricultural practices, result in a lack of river connectivity that significantly impacts fish migration. Due to the relatively small size of Margaret River fish species and their limited swimming capabilities, navigation over these obstructions is significantly constrained. As the native fish species possess no significant commercial value, funds are difficult to secure to afford them protection. However, over the last five to ten years innovative rock ramp fish passes and bypass channels have been designed and built to allow migration of these small fish (Apex weir 2003; Barrett Street weir 2006 and Hutton Dam 2008). Monitoring of the rock ramps has shown that the Western Minnow (Galaxias accidentalis) and macro invertebrates such as the Smooth Marron (Cherax tenuimanus) and Gilglies (Cherax quinquecarinatus) all use the pass for upstream migration, while a number of fish species, including the native Pouched Lamprey (Geotria australis), have been found in the passes during periods of downstream migration. These observations suggest that the constructed fish passes may also facilitate safe passage over the weirs that could otherwise cause significant mortality of small fish, fish larvae and invertebrates. Monitoring to date has demonstrated that only the Western Minnow is utilising the rock ramps and there is no evidence to suggest that the feral Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) is utilising the rock ramps. Mosquitofish are relatively weak swimmers that are largely carnivorous, feeding off small freshwater invertebrates. They were introduced into Australian waters in the 1920s as a biocontrol against mosquitos, however studies on the mosquito fish diet have shown that mosquitos do not feature prominently in their diet and they have subsequently become a threat to native fish populations. If these aggressive carnivorous fish cannot navigate the rock ramps, the installations could potentially act as an effective non native filtering mechanism having a secondary, positive impact, protecting and restoring upstream native fish populations. Although the primary objective of this monitoring was to assess the fish pass effectiveness, it has also demonstrated that there can be additional benefits of carrying out scientific monitoring and project appraisal.

17

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

Town weir on Margaret River, WA, an effective Mosquitofish barrier

Hutton Dam low flow bypass channel, WA

6 Summary and Lessons Learned Throughout the community involved in the management of freshwater resources, it is generally accepted that monitoring and appraisal of river restoration projects should be essential requirements if we are to learn from the work that we are carrying out on our rivers and streams. So why is it that we are continually neglecting to carry out such important stages when working on restoration projects? The various governmental departments, scientists from academic institutes, and private practitioners that I visited in America and Australia, represented only a fraction of the organisations that carry out river restoration schemes. However, it was apparent from these meetings how few habitat enhancement projects are being monitored and appraised. This was not because these organisations did not wish to carry out project appraisals, as the importance of monitoring is clearly recognised, but because the lack of „ring fenced‟ funding and/or the lack of adequate timescales, prevent them implementing robust monitoring programmes. A good baseline data set, essential to carry out robust scientific analyses, requires additional time and resources before and after the actual construction phase of the project. These are often considered luxuries when delivering restoration projects, particularly as a number of projects are often opportunistic, built on the back of larger scale schemes due to lack of foresight or misinterpretation of planning requirements and legislation. This is particularly relevant to the UK, although we are attempting to address these issues in line with recent European legislation, such as the WFD, and through a planning system that is slowly but surely recognising the importance of rivers and their ecosystem function. To avoid ecological damage from poor river restoration practice, we need to find funds and time to monitor our current restoration techniques. The level of project monitoring and the associated cost is generally determined by the project size and overall cost. However, the level of monitoring should also be related to the level of risk to the environment when using particular techniques. The level of risk could be minimised through the assessment of previous projects that have included robust monitoring and have demonstrated positive results. The level of 18

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust monitoring does not necessarily have to be expensive, depending on the aims of the project it may only require some fixed point photography and/or some simple channel morphology surveys. It is also important to have an established, recognised, centralised database of successful and unsuccessful projects. Currently practitioners only tend to submit information from successful projects, but we can learn more about the various restoration techniques from our failed projects. It is fair to say that successful projects are the most rewarding, however unsuccessful projects could be the key to the success of river restoration in the future. River restoration is a science that should produce scientific results to demonstrate project success or failure, and whether we can accept or reject the project‟s hypotheses or objectives.

19