SMURF Project Methodology and Techniques - wise

Transcription

SMURF Project
Methodology and
Techniques
LIFE02 ENV/UK/000144
July 2003
SMURF Project Methodology and Techniques
ii
SMURF Project Methodology
and Techniques
Produced by
Environment Agency
King’s College London
University of Birmingham
and
HR Wallingford Ltd
in association with
Wallingford Software Ltd
July 2003
The SMURF project, Sustainable Management of Urban Rivers and Floodplains, is a
partnership between Birmingham City Council, Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water, HR
Wallingford, Staatliches Umweltamt Herten, University of Birmingham and King’s College London.
ii
This report is a contribution to research generally and it would be imprudent for
third parties to rely on it in specific applications without first checking its
suitability.
Various sections of this report rely on data supplied by or drawn from third
party sources. The authors accept no liability for loss or damage suffered by the
client or third parties as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such third party
data.
The authors will only accept responsibility for the use of their material in
specific projects where they have been engaged to advise upon a specific
commission and given the opportunity to express a view on the reliability of the
material for the particular applications.
ii
Summary
July 2003
SMURF (Sustainable Management of Urban Rivers and Floodplains) is an EU LIFE
Environment demonstration project. The main aims of the project are to develop and
disseminate a new methodology for improved land use planning and water management in
heavily urbanised and degraded environments. The project will develop tools and techniques to
ensure that planning within urban catchments is consistent with the objectives of the Water
Framework Directive, in terms of chemical and ecological quality.
The project objectives will be achieved through an integrated package of specific tasks.
The main elements of this can be summarised as:
·
·
·
·
Development and dissemination of a methodology for urban water management,
and demonstration of new modelling techniques that are transferable to EU and
Candidate Country planning authorities and water managers with responsibility for
implementing the WFD
Extensive citizen consultation to define the local requirements and objectives for
the future management of the river system, and to demonstrate the approach used
Development of a land use planning model using the latest GIS techniques
Physical demonstrations to test the full application of the model, through smallscale structural modifications to improve both water quality and quantity.
This report describes the methodology for each of the three central components of the
SMURF project:
·
·
·
Development of a transferable set of Sustainable Indicators for urban rivers
Citizen Consultation and Stakeholder Involvement
Development of a GIS-based Land-Use Planning Model
iii
iv
Contents
Title page
Summary
Contents
i
iii
v
A.
General Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
A.1
Purpose of this Report.......................................................................................... 1
A.2
Study Area ........................................................................................................... 1
A.3
The Smurf Project ................................................................................................ 3
A.3.1 Aims and objectives................................................................................ 3
A.3.2 Project tasks ............................................................................................ 4
B.
General Discussion ......................................................................................................... 99
B.1
Integration of methods ....................................................................................... 99
B.1.1 Sustainable indicators ........................................................................... 99
B.1.2 Citizen consultation and stakeholder involvement ............................... 99
B1.3 GIS based catchment planning system................................................ 100
B.2
Evaluation of Methods..................................................................................... 100
Figures
Figure A1 Location and main features of the upper Tame catchment......................................... 2
Figure A2 Example of watercourses in the upper Tame.............................................................. 3
PART 1 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS FOR URBAN RIVER ASSESSMENT
1.
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 7
2.
Engineered Stretches within a Spatial Hierarchical Framework....................................... 8
3.
Methodology for Surveying Urban River Stretches........................................................ 11
3.1
The River Habitat Survey .................................................................................. 11
3.2
The Urban River Survey (URS)......................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Background Measurements................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Spot-check Measurements .................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Once-Only Measurements .................................................................... 17
3.2.4 Cumulative Measurements.................................................................... 17
4.
Aggregate Indices from URS Data (Primary Environmental Indicators) ....................... 21
4.1
Indices Describing Materials ............................................................................. 21
4.2
Indices Describing Physical Habitat Features.................................................... 23
4.3
Indices Describing Vegetation Structure And Biomass..................................... 24
5.
Classification of Urban River Stretches (Secondary Environmental Indicators)............ 26
5.1
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 26
5.2
Materials Attributes ........................................................................................... 27
5.3
Physical Habitat Attributes ................................................................................ 28
5.4
Vegetation Attributes ......................................................................................... 30
5.5
Environmental Indicators................................................................................... 32
v
Contents continued
6.
Sector Scale Indices (Tertiary Environmental Indicators) .............................................. 36
6.1
Flow-Related Indicators..................................................................................... 36
6.2
Water Quality Indicators.................................................................................... 36
6.3
Biotic Indicators................................................................................................. 37
6.4
Land Use and Land Availability ........................................................................ 38
7.
Combining Indicators to Address Scenarios of Change ................................................. 39
8.
References....................................................................................................................... 40
Tables
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 1.5
Table 1.6
Table 1.7
Table 1.8
Table 1.9
Table 1.10
Table 1.11
Table 1.12
Table 1.13
Table 1.14
Table 1.15
Table 1.16
Subdivisions of river channel planform character, cross section character and
bed and bank reinforcement that can be combined to define the engineering type
for a reach of urban channel ..................................................................................... 10
Groups of variables that must be considered for incorporation into an URS ........... 13
Variables included in the URS Background Information and their
compatibility with those of the RHS methodology .................................................. 14
Comparison of spot-check variables between RHS and URS methodologies.......... 14
Land use types used to describe land use at the catchment scale (Level 1) and
finer spatial scales (Level 2)..................................................................................... 16
URS channel vegetation types and example species (Adapted from EA, 1997)...... 17
Comparison of attributes assessed in the cumulative measurements within the
RHS and URS surveys.............................................................................................. 18
Types of pollution recorded in the URS................................................................... 19
Categories of habitat features recorded in the URS.................................................. 20
Synthetic Indices derived from the Urban River Survey relating to three
different sets of characteristics of urban river stretches: ‘Materials’,
‘Physical Habitat’ and ‘Vegetation’. (Note, properties that may indicate
degradation in water quality are included in the vegetation list because
water quality and vegetation are expected to be related).......................................... 21
Bank Protection Types .............................................................................................22
Index Values for the dominant flow type within the stretch. ...................................23
Descriptions of the characteristics of stretches attributed to different
Materials clusters......................................................................................................28
Descriptions of the characteristics of stretches attributed to different
Physical Habitat clusters (clusters arranged in order of number of habitat types) ...29
Water Quality Criteria for defining River Ecosystem Classes (from NRA, 1994) ..37
The GQA classification of rivers according to their biological quality
incorporating RIVPACS derived EQI indices (EA, Pers. Comm). ..........................38
Figures
Figure 1.1 A hierarchy of six spatial scales at which urban river data may be collected,
stored and analysed, with examples of the data types that might be collected at
each scale....................................................................................................................9
Figure 1.2 Catchment and local controls on the geomorphology of river stretches (the bold
text in italics refers to factors which can adjust in many rural river channels
but which are frequently fixed by engineering works in urban river channels) .........9
Figure 1.3 Macrophyte types grouped according to their perceived attenuation of flow
in urban channels......................................................................................................25
vi
Contents continued
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.7
Figure 1.8
Figure 1.9
5 clusters of urban river stretches defined by their materials characteristics ...........27
5 clusters of urban river stretches defined by their physical habitat characteristics.29
8 clusters of urban river stretches defined by their Vegetation characteristics ........30
Flow chart for allocating urban river stretches to the relevant Materials Class .......33
Flow chart for allocating urban river stretches to the relevant Physical Class .........34
Flow chart for allocating urban river stretches to the relevant Physical Class .........35
PART 2 CITIZEN CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
1.
Background ..................................................................................................................... 45
2.
Programme Objectives.................................................................................................... 46
3.
Programme Elements ...................................................................................................... 47
3.1
Location of Case Study Areas............................................................................ 47
3.2
Community Group Recruitment......................................................................... 48
3.3
Workshop Process.............................................................................................. 48
3.4
Environmental NGOs and Business Stakeholders ............................................. 48
3.5
Phase III – Site-Specific Involvement ............................................................... 48
3.6
Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 49
PART 3 GIS BASED CATCHMENT PLANNING SYSTEM
1.
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 53
1.1
Objectives .......................................................................................................... 53
1.2
Structure of Report............................................................................................. 53
1.3
Benchmark Report ............................................................................................. 54
1.4
Basic System Requirements............................................................................... 55
1.5
Summary ............................................................................................................ 56
2.
Information Available ..................................................................................................... 57
2.1
Data.................................................................................................................... 57
2.1.1 Water resources..................................................................................... 57
2.1.2 Water Quality........................................................................................ 58
2.1.3 Biological Data ..................................................................................... 59
2.2
GIS ..................................................................................................................... 60
2.3
Models ............................................................................................................... 60
2.3.1 Water quality......................................................................................... 61
2.3.2 River flows and flooding ...................................................................... 62
2.3.3 Sewer modelling and the UPM study ................................................... 62
2.4
The URGENT Research Programme ................................................................. 63
2.5
Summary ............................................................................................................ 63
vii
Contents continued
3.
Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 64
3.1
Environment Agency ......................................................................................... 64
3.2
Severn Trent Water ............................................................................................ 66
3.3
Birmingham City Council.................................................................................. 68
3.4
Other Stakeholders............................................................................................. 70
3.5
Summary ............................................................................................................ 71
4.
System Description ......................................................................................................... 72
4.1
Functional description........................................................................................ 72
4.1.1 Data Manager........................................................................................ 73
4.1.2 Scenario Testing.................................................................................... 73
4.2
SMURF Models ................................................................................................. 76
4.2.1 Delivered Models.................................................................................. 76
4.2.2 Integrated models.................................................................................. 77
4.2.3 SMURF Model database....................................................................... 77
4.3
Outline design .................................................................................................... 78
4.3.1 Single-user v Multi-user ....................................................................... 78
4.3.2 GIS Software......................................................................................... 80
4.3.3 Data Storage.......................................................................................... 81
4.3.4 SMURF Data ........................................................................................ 83
4.4
Innovative Aspects............................................................................................. 85
4.4.1 Integration of InfoWorks RS and CS.................................................... 85
4.4.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................... 86
4.4.3 Flow Path Tool...................................................................................... 87
4.4.4 Sustainability Indicators Data ............................................................... 87
4.4.5 Rule-based modelling ........................................................................... 88
4.4.6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systens (SUDS) ...................................... 88
4.5
Summary ............................................................................................................ 89
5.
Audit ............................................................................................................................... 90
5.1
Quality Assurance on System Development...................................................... 90
5.2
Quality Assurance on System Use ..................................................................... 90
5.2.1 Version control ..................................................................................... 90
5.2.2 Audit trail .............................................................................................. 91
5.3
Success criteria................................................................................................... 91
5.4
Summary ............................................................................................................ 92
6.
Future Development........................................................................................................ 93
6.1
System Maintenance .......................................................................................... 93
6.2
Functional Development .................................................................................... 93
6.3
Roll Out.............................................................................................................. 94
6.4
Product Software................................................................................................ 95
6.5
Summary ............................................................................................................ 96
7.
References....................................................................................................................... 97
Tables
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Structure of reports ...................................................................................................54
Hydrometric data in the Upper Tame Catchment.....................................................57
Determinands stored in SMURF system database ...................................................59
Fish species recorded at Elford (10/9/97).................................................................60
What-if Questions.....................................................................................................74
viii
Contents continued
Figures
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Environment Agency work flows.............................................................................65
Severn Trent Water work flows ...............................................................................67
Local Authority planning application process..........................................................68
Local Authority development of planning policies ..................................................69
Possible Multi-user System - not adopted ................................................................79
Single-user System ...................................................................................................80
Shared InfoWorks Model Database..........................................................................80
Software Components ..............................................................................................81
Appendix
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Specification of catchment data to be incorporated into SMURF
Listing of all the GIS layers that are currently planned to be included in
the SMURF system
Details of the functionality provided by the SMURF data display toolbars
Flowcharts detailing the processes involved in handling both simple,
automated and manual ‘what if’ questions
Functional Specifications
ix
x
A.
General Introduction
A.1
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
SMURF (Sustainable Management of Urban Rivers and Floodplains) is an EU LIFE
Environment demonstration project. This report sets out the methodology and
techniques to be applied during development and implementation of the main elements
of the SMURF project.
The report consists of a general introduction to the project including a description of the
study area and the project objectives. The main body of the report comprises separate
sections covering the methodology to be used for three of the main components of the
SMURF project:
·
·
·
Development of a transferable set of Sustainable Indicators for urban rivers
Implementation of a plan for Citizen Consultation and Stakeholder Involvement
Development of a GIS-based Land-Use Planning Model
A final section of the report then gives an overview of how the tasks described in the
report will be integrated to deliver the overall project objectives.
The final methodologies and techniques described in this report have been derived
following extensive consultation, debate and evaluation of existing know-how, best
practice and relevant R&D from across Europe. This evaluation and benchmarking
process is partly described in two other SMURF project reports: the external project
report on the ‘Know-how’ gathering workshop held in Birmingham in April 2003 and
the Benchmark Report on existing EU ‘Know-how’ on Integrated Catchment
Management and Land-Use Planning. These reports are available on the SMURF
project web site www.smurf-project.info.
A.2
STUDY AREA
The SMURF project is centred on the upper Tame catchment, and particularly the area
within the city of Birmingham.
The upper Tame catchment forms one of the headwaters of the River Trent basin
(Figure A1), which in turn is part of the Humber river basin district; one of the 10 river
basin districts in England and Wales that have been identified for reporting of the Water
Framework Directive (DEFRA, 2002). The upper Tame is unusual in that it lies within
the West Midlands conurbation, and encompasses Birmingham, the second largest city
in the UK. Typically, such large urban areas, such as London or Paris, are found in the
lower part of the catchment, rather than the headwaters. Some 73% of the catchment is
urban/industrial and is home to 1.8m people. Another distinguishing feature is that the
majority of the water used in the catchment is imported from elsewhere.
The Tame catchment has suffered from significant structural modifications and
pollution associated with 200 years of mining, industrialisation and urban development.
The principal industries of engineering, metal finishing and other manufacturing still
form the main economic activity, although there has been a steady industrial decline
since the 1980s. This has given rise to substantial land use changes and has left some
1
6000 ha of contaminated land. The environmental pressure of this ‘development and
decline’ has significantly altered the hydrological nature of the area, affecting both
surface and groundwater. The sewage treatment works at Minworth is the biggest inland
treatment works in Europe, processing all the foul sewage collected across the
catchment.
In spite of significant investment in the wastewater systems over the past 13 years, river
water quality across the catchment is among the poorest in the country, with some 75%
in the poor or very poor categories. This compares to 30% of rivers in London and 24%
in Manchester. There is also evidence of an increasing incidence of storm events, which
puts significant pressure on the urban drainage infrastructure, increasing the occurrence
of flooding and foul sewer overflows. This in turn leads to the flushing of pollutants into
the watercourses during storm events, and the mobilisation of contaminated sediments
in both the sewers and the rivers. As a result there is poor ecology and riparian habitats
and frequent fish kills. Examples of the type of river channel found in the catchment are
shown in Figure A2. These illustrate the profound challenges that the SMURF project
needs to address within the catchment if the objectives of the WFD are to be realised.
Figure A1
Location and main features of the upper Tame catchment
2
River Tame under the M6
River Rea near Digbeth, Birmingham
Figure A2
A.3
Example of watercourses in the upper Tame
THE SMURF PROJECT
A.3.1 Aims and objectives
The main aims of the SMURF project are to develop and disseminate a new
methodology for improved land use planning and water management in heavily
urbanised and degraded environments. The project is being led by the Environment
Agency (EA), in partnership with Birmingham City Council, Severn Trent Water, HR
Wallingford and Staatliches Umweltamt Herten (Germany), plus the University of
Birmingham and King’s College London. The project started in August 2002, and will
last for three years.
As well as changing the way that land use and water management is carried out within
urban floodplains, it will also provide an opportunity to test the Agency’s emerging
plans and policies for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). It
will therefore develop tools and techniques to ensure that planning within urban
catchments is consistent with the objectives of the WFD, in terms of chemical and
ecological quality.
3
A.3.2 Project tasks
The project objectives will be achieved through an integrated package of specific tasks.
The main elements of this can be summarised as:
·
·
·
·
Development and dissemination of a methodology for urban water management,
and demonstration of new modelling techniques that are transferable to EU and
Candidate Country planning authorities and water managers with responsibility for
implementing the WFD
Extensive citizen consultation to define the local requirements and objectives for the
future management of the river system, and to demonstrate the approach used
Development of a land use planning model using the latest GIS techniques
Physical demonstrations to test the full application of the model, through small-scale
structural modifications to improve both water quality and quantity.
An early objective of the project is to develop the methodology for implementing three
of those tasks:
·
Sustainable Indicators set
The project aims to develop a set of Sustainable Indicators for highly modified
urban river systems based on a habitat and ecological classification system for such
urban rivers. The derived set of indicators will be transferable to other urban rivers
across the EU. The methodology for this task is described in Part 1of this report
‘Environmental indicators for urban river assessment’.
·
Citizen Consultation and Stakeholder Involvement
The project aims to involve local citizens and a range of stakeholders in the
development and implementation of the project. The process of engagement will
determine what specific benefits local citizens require from rivers in the Tame
catchment, involve local citizens in the planning process and disseminate the
approach and experience.
The participation process may also produce additional sustainable indicators that
can be added to the Sustainable Indicators set derived from habitat and ecological
classification of the river system.
The methodology for achieving citizen and stakeholder involvement in the project is
described in Part 2 of this report.
·
GIS-based land-use planning methodology
The project aims to develop a GIS-based land-use planning system for the period
2004-2020 that will allow the practical testing of management options to identify
the measures required to achieve the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.
The system will utilise and integrate information on changing land-use, ecological
status, water quality and quantity.
The methodology for development of this system is described in Part 3 of the report.
4
PART 1
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
FOR URBAN RIVER
ASSESSMENT
5
6
1.
Introduction
This section of the report describes a method for deriving Environmental Indicators for urban
river assessment. The method is based upon the following stages:
·
Conceptualising the functioning of urban rivers within a spatially hierarchical framework
(section 2).
·
Recognising that urban river stretches affected by different levels of engineering
intervention form the key spatial scale for urban river assessment, but that processes and
forms at other spatial scales are also of importance (section 2)
·
Proposing an Urban River Survey which provides data to characterise the environmental
characteristics of engineered stretches whilst maintaining compatibility with the widelyused River Habitat Survey (section 3)
·
Evaluating summary indices from URS data to provide quantitative information on
environmental properties of engineered stretches. The values of these summary indices are
Primary Environmental Indicators since they provide a quantitative description of a
range of specific properties of engineered stretches (e.g. bank and bed material calibre, inchannel and bank vegetation biomass, extent of bank or bed reinforcement of different
types) and thus provide a detailed description of each stretch (section 4)
·
Classifying engineered stretches into a few (5 to 8) classes according to groups of primary
environmental indicators describing channel and bank ‘Materials’; the number and types
of ‘Physical Habitats’; the distribution, biomass and type of ‘Vegetation’. ‘Materials’,
‘Physical Habitat’ and ‘Vegetation’ are Secondary Environmental Indicators. The
classes ascribed to each of these environmental indicators can be arranged along a gradient
of diversity, abundance or modification where each class represents a typical combination
of the primary environmental indicators. In some cases the class to which a stretch is
allocated could be directly altered by engineering intervention (e.g. the introduction of
increased reinforcement materials could change the ‘Materials’ class), whereas in other
cases stretch classes may be associated with engineering intervention as a result of more
indirect links between engineering and stretch properties (e.g. the biomass and character of
bank vegetation, the number and types of in-channel physical habitats). If association with
engineering is apparent, then the classifications can be used to consider the likely
consequences of change in channel engineering for the class to which a stretch might be
allocated (section 5). If there is no direct link with engineering, the class of a stretch can
still be used to assess scenarios of natural recovery or imposed change.
·
Incorporating Tertiary Environmental Indicators operating at the sector scale (e.g.
properties of the flow regime) or observed within the same sector as the engineered stretch
(e.g. water quality or biotic indices and scores), and assessing their relative importance in
constraining recovery potential (section 6). Such indicators allow an assessment of the
potential of a stretch for modification, enhancement or rehabilitation as a result of just
changes in the way it is engineered (e.g. flow energy, water quality, availability of
propagules, flood plain extent and land use).
7
2.
Engineered Stretches within a Spatial Hierarchical
Framework
Frissell et al. (1986) proposed a hierarchical framework for stream habitat assessment and
classification, based on the assumption that river ecosystems are largely controlled by physical
patterns and processes which interact at a range of spatial scales. The framework had a
spatially nested, hierarchical structure, with five spatial scales of river unit in the hierarchy:
stream network, segment or sector, stretch or reach, pool-riffle, and microhabitat. Small
objects, such as patches of river-bed sediment are set within a framework of intermediate scale
units (e.g. pool-riffles) and larger scale units (e.g. sectors of river between tributary
confluences). This hierarchical framework has been adopted in parts of the United States and
South Africa as a basis for river assessment (Beechie and Sibley, 1990; Wadeson and
Rowntree, 1994). It is a robust starting point for designing the spatial structure and sampling
regime of new monitoring programmes, as well as providing a conceptual framework for
integrating data from different sources and for devising river classification schemes.
A spatially hierarchical framework is particularly useful for storing, analysing and classifying
information on urban rivers because the character of urban rivers at all spatial scales is heavily
constrained by the range of engineering works undertaken at different times for a variety of
purposes. An hierarchical framework can be constructed around the engineering modifications
that have been made to urban rivers. Figure 1.1 illustrates that there are five spatial scales
within the framework that we have devised for urban rivers: the catchment (entire stream
network), sector (major tributaries and unbranched sections of river between tributary
junctions), stretch (river reach exhibiting a single engineering ‘type’), habitat (individual pool,
riffle, bar etc.) and patch. Engineered stretches that reflect differences in the nature and degree
of engineering intervention are the key spatial units to which units at other spatial scales can
be linked. Thus engineered stretches may be aggregated into river sectors and catchment
networks, or subdivided into habitats and patches.
Engineered stretches have a single ‘type’ of engineering intervention based on a combination
of (i) the river planform; (ii) the channel cross section, and (iii) the amount of bank and bed reinforcement. Table 1.1 lists the various subdivisions of these three properties that can be
combined to identify 144 potential engineering ‘types’.
Figure 1.2 summarises the catchment and local controls on the geomorphology of river
stretches and provides the rationale for defining the scale of the engineering stretch as the key
to understanding and classifying urban river channels. Under natural conditions, the form of a
river channel is determined by interactions between the river flow and sediment transport
regimes and the boundary materials within which the channel is developed. The flow and
sediment regimes of urban rivers are heavily modified by catchment-scale, sector-scale and
stretch-scale influences on hydrological and hydraulic processes, and on the availability of
sediment. The channel margin materials are frequently modified at the stretch-scale as a result
of engineering intervention. This stretch-scale modification places severe constraints on the
degree to which the river form can adjust to variations in river flow and sediment transport,
and it suggests that the fundamental scale for differentiating the nature and diversity of
physical habitat within urban rivers is the river stretch, distinguished by engineering ‘type’.
8
CATCHMENT
SECTOR
Catchment
characteristics
Main tributary
or section of
the main river
between
tributary
junctions
STRETCH
Up to 500m in
length of any
single
engineering type
HABITAT
Physical
habitat feature
(riffle; bar etc.)
River corridor land use
Water quality data
Hydrological data
Figure 1.1
Channel
morphology
Vegetation
Reinforcement
Materials
Flow Types
Hydraulics
PATCH
Patch of
vegetation or
sediment
Biological data
Sediments
Local hydraulic data
Biological data
Sediments
Local hydraulic
data
A hierarchy of six spatial scales at which urban river data may be collected, stored
and analysed, with examples of the data types that might be collected at each scale
GEOMORPHOLOGY
CATCHMENT PROCESSES
Flow Regime
Sediment Transport Regime
Water Quality Regime
Water and wind-transported
Propagules
Channel Size
Bed and Bank Form
Bed and Bank Sediment Size
and Heterogeneity
Vegetation Pattern and Structure
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Slope
Bed and Bank Materials
(including vegetation impact on
hydraulics and material strength)
Locally-derived propagules
PHYSICAL HABITAT
Character
Diversity
Dynamics / Stability
Figure 1.2
Catchment and local controls on the geomorphology of river stretches (the bold text in
italics refers to factors which can adjust in many rural river channels but which are
frequently fixed by engineering works in urban river channels)
9
Table 1.1
Subdivisions of river channel planform character, cross section character and bed and
bank reinforcement that can be combined to define the engineering type for a reach of
urban channel
(i) Alterations to the
river’s planform
Semi-Natural
Straight
Meandering
Recovered
(ii) Re-engineering of the
channel cross section
Semi-Natural
Restored
Cleaned
Enlarged
Two-stage
Resectioned
(iii) Re-inforcement of the
channel bed and banks
No re-inforcement
Bed only
1 bank only
Bed and 1 bank only
Both banks only
Full
Because the engineered stretch is the key spatial scale for defining the characteristics of urban
rivers within the hierarchical framework of Figure 1.1, this report concentrates on a
methodology for defining environmental indicators for urban river stretches. Nevertheless, the
position of a stretch within a sector or the entire river network influences the flow and water
quality regime to which it is subject and also the availability of plant and faunal propagules to
colonise the stretch (Figure 1.2) and so some sector-scale summary process indicators are also
relevant to the assessment of urban river stretches. It is, therefore, the interaction of stretch
(i.e. primary and secondary) and sector scale (i.e. tertiary) indicators that provide an
assessment of the present state of the stretch, its likely response to changes in management,
and its potential for recovery.
10
3.
Methodology for Surveying Urban River Stretches
This section describes the current state of development of a methodology for surveying urban
river stretches. It is currently under review and will be subject to minor modification before
the completion of the SMURF project.
The majority of river geomorphological and habitat surveys have been devised for the
appraisal of rural rivers (Newson, 2002). Whilst such surveys can be applied to urban rivers,
they may not be sufficiently sensitive to urban river characteristics to produce discrimination
between different urban river reaches. Whereas the dimensions of rural channels closely
reflect the magnitude and frequency of the fluvial processes that they transmit (Wharton,
1995) and the frequency of geomorphological features, such as pools and riffles are also scaled
to the channel dimensions (e.g. Leopold and Wolman, 1957), this is not often the case for
urban channels. Not only is the channel size frequently a product of channel engineering, but
urban channels often contain artificial structures and materials which have significant
hydraulic impacts that control sediment dynamics and the creation of particular habitat types,
such as bars and pools. Thus, urban channels may not display the number or pattern of
physical habitats that are encountered in less heavily impacted channels. As a result, any
physical assessment of urban rivers must place heavy emphasis on channel engineering.
Channels subject to single types of engineering can range in length from a few metres to
several hundred metres, but commonly fall in a range of 200m to 1km. Since a 500m reach of
river is now widely adopted as the basis for many surveys of rural rivers in the UK, especially
for the River Habitat Survey (RHS), surveys of a standard 500m reach length of a single
engineering type are adopted here for surveys of urban rivers.
3.1
THE RIVER HABITAT SURVEY
The current operational habitat survey technique in the UK is the Environment Agency’s River
Habitat Survey (RHS). Its provides a rapid assessment of physical and hydraulic habitat,
riparian structure, and ecological potential of 500m stretches of river, that can be completed by
non-specialists following a short training course (Raven et al., 1997). The spatial scale and
widespread usage of the RHS method provides a good foundation for the development of a
survey methodology specifically focussed on urban rivers. Moreover, the usefulness of both
surveys is enhanced if compatibility between them can be maintained.
In brief, the RHS is comprised of 4 basic components: (i) Background Measurements; (ii)
Spot-check Measurements; (iii) Once-Only Measurements; and (iv) Cumulative
Measurements.
Background measurements include the date, time of the survey, grid reference, and general
conditions for the assessment (adverse weather, and channel bed visibility). Properties that
relate the stretch to its catchment, provide a context for the survey and can be derived mainly
from secondary sources (e.g. altitude, geology, distance from source, slope) or a brief
assessment in the field (e.g. valley form) are also recorded.
Spot-check measurements are recorded within 1m wide transects across the channel located
every 50m along the stretch (10 spot checks per 500m stretch), with a ‘catch-all’ column for
the final 50m in the stretch. The attributes associated with each spot-check are assessed by eye
from either the bank or from within the channel, and include the physical attributes of the
channel (channel substrate, bank materials, in-stream features such as bars, flow types, and
forms and modifications of the channel and banks), in-channel macrophytes, the bank
vegetation in terms of its complexity, and immediate land use (5m from the bank top), once
11
only measurements are assessed once within the stretch. They include bank and channel width,
water depth, bank top and bank full height, and embanked height.
Cumulative measurements comprise all of the measurements contained within the RHS
‘sweep-up’ section. A continuous assessment is made along the 500m stretch and a single
recording made at the end of the survey. These attributes include the presence of trees and
their associated features, bank profile types, land use, channel features, artificial features,
special features and management attributes. A total of 12 separate categories are evaluated,
comprising some 80 different measurements.
3.2
THE URBAN RIVER SURVEY (URS)
An important feature of the RHS is its success in harmonising the wide variety of data to be
collected into a simple rapid survey. The basic structure of the survey and the definitions of
the variables are maintained within the Urban River Survey (URS). The variables contained
within each section of the URS may differ from the RHS, however, reflecting the differences
between required for a survey focussing specifically upon urban channels. Much emphasis in
the RHS is placed on the frequency of habitat features which are assessed using the spot-check
measurements. Emphasis is also placed on artificial features found within the stretch, and the
associated land use. In an urban context a different level of importance needs to be placed on
these categories. For example, in urban rivers, the channel has often been heavily modified for
flood defence, thus importance needs to be placed on characterising the habitat features
associated with such modifications and with processes of recovery. Geomorphological features
are often infrequent or lacking in urban channels, and their presence and frequency are,
therefore, better represented as counts along the entire stretch (cumulative measurements)
rather than by regularly spaced spot-checks. Artificial features also require a more detailed
characterisation both in terms of their frequency and extent, especially measurements
associated with the reinforcement of the channel bed and banks. Furthermore, water quality
requires a more detailed assessment in urban channels to cover the range of water quality
problems that might occur. These problems can be recorded using easily identifiable indicators
such water colour, turbidity, algal growth or smell. Building on the current RHS, the types of
variables within each of the four specific groups that need to be assessed within the URS are
listed in Table 1.2, and are developed in greater detail below.
The URS methodology is designed to be compatible with the RHS, and is therefore equally
simple to complete. Complex stretches of urban channel such as those located within
rehabilitation schemes, and even stretches that remain unmodified can be surveyed within the
average one hour time span that the RHS methodology advocates, while heavily engineered or
extremely uniform stretches may take as little as 20 minutes to complete. However, the survey
has been designed to be sensitive enough to recognise even small changes in channel form,
which may be important in the hostile conditions that exist within urban channels. Each
component of the URS is described and justified below, referring to equivalent measures in the
RHS where necessary.
12
Table 1.2
Groups of variables that must be considered for incorporation into an URS
Geomorphological
Variables
Channel Substrate
Materials
Bank Materials
Channel Dimensions
Hydraulic
Variables
Flow Type
Ecological Variables
Other Variables
Bank face Structure
Channel Dimensions
Habitat features
Bank profiles
Special features
Bank top structure
Macrophyte type and
amount
Trees and associated
features
Species present
Land use (5m and 50m
from the bank)
Water and Sediment odours
Oils
Bank Protection
type/amount
Habitat Features
Special features
Nuisance species
present
Alders/Diseased alders
present
Evidence of Recent
Management
Surface scum
Gross pollution
Clarity
Number of input pipes
Number of leach points
Evidence of Recent
Management
3.2.1 Background Measurements
Background measurements incorporate the variables that (i) relate the stretch to its catchment
and to the river sector within which it is located; (ii) are survey-specific, placing it in a
temporal context, and (iii) define the general character of the stretch against which the detailed
attributes of the river channel and riparian corridor can be placed (Table 1.3). Several of the
variables enable the surveyed stretch to be placed in a hierarchical catchment framework, as
advocated by Frissell et al, (1986). The Hydrocatchment Identification Number (HC ID)
relates the stretch to the catchment and the sector code relates the stretch to the network sector
in which it lies. These are complemented by the river name and central grid reference.
Variables that define survey specific details (the date and time of the survey, the surveyor
name and RHS accreditation number, and the location from which the survey is made, i.e.
bank or channel), conditions at the time of survey (adverse conditions and bed visibility), and
give a pictorial reference for the stretch (photographs taken) are retained from the RHS. The
remaining variables describe the general character of the stretch including the engineering
type, and indices of river quality that are generally applied by the Environment Agency. The
latter include the General Quality Assessment (GQA) chemical quality and biological quality
(Nixon et al., 1996). The latter uses the RIVPACS programme (Wright et al., 1993) to predict
target values of the faunal parameters number of taxa, and BMWP score (Biological
Monitoring Working Party) and ASPT (Average Score Per Taxon) that can be compared with
observed values. BMWP scores are no longer used by the Environment Agency to calculate
the GQA grading of rivers, but have proved a useful descriptor of biological quality (Hawkes,
1997).
13
Table 1.3
Variables included in the URS Background Information and their compatibility with
those of the RHS methodology
RHS COMPATIBLE VARIABLES
River Name
Central Grid Reference
Surveyor Name
Accreditation Number (from RHS course)
Date of survey
Time of survey
Adverse Conditions Affecting Results
Bed Visible
Photographs Taken
Site Surveyed From (Bank/channel)
Distance from Source (km)
GQA Water Quality Class
Solid Geology Code
Drift Geology Code
URS SPECIFIC VARIABLES
Hydrocatchment ID Number (from EA)
Sector Code
Stretch ID Code
Stretch Name
Stretch Engineering Type
Observed BMWP Score
Predicted BMWP Score
Observed ASPT Score
Predicted ASPT Score
RHS Data Available?
GQA Biological Quality Class
3.2.2 Spot-check Measurements
Spot-check measurements when combined with a final 50m sweep up category represent the
frequency and pattern of the features found within the river channel. Table 1.4 compares the
properties recorded within the RHS and URS. The key changes to the RHS methodology are
found in detailing the physical characteristics of the channel at each spot-check. Bank
protection in urban rivers is a fundamental component of the channel structure. The frequency
of different types of protection, and the mosaic of types found along each bank greatly
influence flow hydraulics and the type of habitats found within the stretch. Furthermore, the
composition of the bank material influences the durability of each type of protection. For
example, gabions placed in a predominantly sand bank material may be washed out through
erosion at a faster rate than gabions placed in a more cohesive bank. The URS therefore,
records the underlying ‘natural’ bank materials in a separate category using the classes of
sediment calibre adopted in the RHS (e.g. cobble, gravel/sand, clay etc.), while the bank
protection is recorded using descriptors derived specifically for the URS (e.g. gabions, rip-rap,
sheet piling etc.). The measurements of bank and channel modifications and features recorded
in the RHS, have been omitted in the URS spot-check measurements, and included in the
cumulative measurements.
Table 1.4
Comparison of spot-check variables between RHS and URS methodologies
RHS SPOT-CHECK PARAMETERS
Bank Materials
Bank Modifications
Bank Features
Channel Substrate
Flow Type
Channel Modifications
Channel Features
Bank Top structure
Bank Face Structure
Bank Top Land Use (5m)
Channel Vegetation
URS SPOT-CHECK PARAMETERS
Bank Materials
Bank Protection
Channel Substrate
Flow Type
Bank Top Structure
Bank Face Structure
Bank Top Land Use (5m)
Channel Vegetation
14
Both bank modifications and some channel modifications are implicit in the definition of the
urban stretch and, therefore, inclusion of these attributes within the spot-check section of the
survey are unnecessary. Other features recorded by the RHS, such as dams and fords, are
generally absent from urban channels, where the engineered function of the river is to
transport large amounts of water away from the urban area as quickly as possible.
Nevertheless, it is important to include all types of modification within the survey and for this
reason these attributes are recorded in the cumulative measurements. ‘Natural’ bank and
channel features such as bars and eroding cliffs, while important features of urban channels,
are relatively infrequent, and the collection of data on these attributes is best served by an
overall assessment of the stretch rather than by a regularly spaced assessment of the channel.
Thus, a combination of the stretch definition, which summarises its engineering type, together
with a series of cumulative measures rather than spot-checks provide an appropriate summary
of bank and channel features and modifications within the URS.
Channel substrate is an important component of urban rivers, especially where artificial
substrates have been placed within the channel. The measurement of this attribute is similar to
the RHS methodology, with the categories of channel substrate being retained within the URS.
Where artificial substrates occur, however, the presence of mobile substrates overlaying
artificial materials is also recorded. This is important for evaluating the channel’s capacity for
forming features such as riffles and bars despite the rigid bed reinforcement, which ultimately
may affect the ecological diversity of the channel. Measurements of flow type, bank face and
bank top structure remain unchanged within the URS methodology.
The dominant land use on the bank top is also recorded in the URS. The RHS methodology
categorises the typical land use types found across a range of river environments and classifies
urban and suburban development as a single homogenous category. However, the urban
environment is not a single expanse of land development but a complex mix of fragmented
‘natural’ land cover types set within and between different types of urban development.
Moreover, different land use types, even in urban areas, affect stretches of rivers differently
(i.e. industrial, residential, parkland). Any measurements of land use must therefore reflect this
heterogeneity. The URS, therefore adopts a two-tiered classification of land-use proposed by
Anderson et al. (1976) and modified by Meador et al. (1993) (Table 1.5). Level 1 uses entirely
remotely sensed data to categorise the land into 6 broad categories: Urban, Agricultural,
Rangeland, Forest land, Wetland, and Barren land, and is typically applied at a catchment
scale. These broad categories are then subdivided into 21 Level 2 land use types (Table 1.5)
that can be assessed either by using aerial photographs or during the field survey of river
stretches. The URS also records the available floodplain width, which is the width of any open
land use adjacent to the channel.
The final attribute measured in this section of the URS survey is that of channel vegetation.
Channel vegetation in the urban environment is important for three reasons. Firstly, the
diversity of the aquatic macrophytes is important for the ecological integrity of the system.
Secondly, channel vegetation affects flow patterns, and excessive growth of some types of
macrophyte, such as submerged fine leaved species (e.g. Potamogeton pectinatis) can affect
channel conveyance, creating problems for flood management. Thirdly, excessive growth of
macrophyte types such as filamentous algae induce marked diurnal fluctuations of dissolved
oxygen within the water column (Pitcairn and Hawkes, 1973; Kirk, 1994), affecting the
ecology of the system. The RHS method for measuring channel vegetation has been retained
within the URS, but with one important change, the extent of each vegetation type is recorded,
reflecting the importance of excessive macrophyte and algal growth (Table 1.6). An additional
category that is critical to the ecological interpretation of the urban river is the explicit
recording of non-visible channels in comparison with those that possess no vegetation cover.
Modified channels frequently possess high concentrations of suspended material, especially
15
after rainfall, which reduce the visibility of the channel bed, whilst low levels of shading
combined with increased nutrient inputs from sewage effluents increase the extent of aquatic
macrophytes. It is important, therefore, to make the distinction between no vegetation cover,
and vegetation that is not visible. It is also important to note that although the macrophyte type
‘Filamentous Algae’ is not strictly a macrophyte, algal species such as Cladophora are a
characteristic indicator of organic pollution and may grow to lengths of up to 10m (Pitcairn
and Hawkes, 1973). Therefore, they are included in the appraisal of channel vegetation.
Table 1.5
Land use types used to describe land use at the catchment scale (Level 1) and finer
spatial scales (Level 2)
Level 1 Land Use Codes
UR (Urban)
AG (Agricultural)
FO (Forested)
PA (Pasture)
OW (Open Water)
WE (Wetland)
BA (Bare)
Level 2 Land Use Codes
Re
Cm
In
Ic
Tr
Sw
Ld
Dr
Cn
Cr
Pa
Or
Fe
Co
Dd
Ow
He
Sc
Op
Rc
Ce
Es
La
Rv
Ca
Rq
Tb
Fo
Nf
Sm
Ex
Tn
16
Description
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Industrial/Commercial
Transport
Sewage Treatment Works
Landfill/Refuse Deposits
Derelict Land
Contaminated land
Cropland
Pasture
Orchard
Close Feeding (Battery Farms etc.)
Coniferous
Deciduous
Open Woodland
Heathland
Scrub
Open Parkland (Community Grass etc.)
Recreational Land (Playing Fields)
Cemeteries/Crematoria
Estate Lands (Inc. MOD)
Lake
Reservoir
Canal
Reclaimed Quarry
Tributary
Forested
Non-forested
Strip mines/Open Cast
Exposed Rock
Transitional
Table 1.6
URS channel vegetation types and example species (Adapted from EA, 1997)
RHS Channel
Vegetation Type
None
Non Visible Channel
Mosses/liverworts/ lichens
Emergent broad leaved herbs
Emergent reeds/sedges/rushes
Macrophyte Code
Example Species
NON
NVC
LML
EBH
RSR
Floating leaved (rooted)
RFL
Free-floating
FFL
Amphibious
AMP
Submerged Broad-leaved
Submerged linear-leaved
SBL
SLL
Submerged fine-leaved
SFL
Filamentous algae
FAL
No vegetation present
Channel bed not visible
Exposed or submerged
Apium spp; Rorippa spp
Sparganium erectum; Glyceria maxima;
Schoenoplectus; Typha; Phragmites; Juncus
spp; Carex spp
Nuphar lutea; Potamogeton natans;
Sparganium emersum
Lemna spp; Hydrocharis; Ceratophyllum;
Stratiotes.
Polygonum amphibium; Agrostis stolonifera;
Glyceria fluitans; Alopecurus geniculatus;
Myosotis scorpiodes.
Nuphar spp; Elodea spp; Callitriche spp.
Sparganium erectum; Butomus umbellatus;
Typha spp; Sagittaria sagittifolia
Ranunculus spp; Myriophyllum spp;
Ceratophyllum spp.
Cladophora; Enteromorpha
3.2.3 Once-Only Measurements
The channel dimensions assessed in the RHS have been retained within the URS (i.e. bankfull
width, water width, water depth, banktop height, embanked height, trashline height, and
location of measurement), and an additional measurement of the amount of macrophyte cover
at this point within the stretch is included for completeness. Channel dimensions are important
properties of urban rivers. Although these dimensions may not always be able to adjust freely
in response to fluvial processes in urban rivers, they nevertheless impact on the
geomorphological features that are found within the channel. For example, depositional berms
and marginal bars might be expected in overwidened channels, whilst reinforced straightened,
or narrow, overdeepened channels, might produce fewer geomorphological features of a
coarser sediment calibre than natural channels with a similar flow and sediment transport
regime.
3.2.4 Cumulative Measurements
The attributes included in this section of the survey are intended to provide an overall
impression of the quality of the stretch, and how well the channel may be recovering from past
modifications (Table 1.7). Within the urban context, quality can be determined by the diversity
of the channel morphology, the vegetational structure of the riparian zone, the level of water
pollution, and the recovery potential of the stretch.
Pollution exerts influence over river ecology through direct means such as toxic chemicals and
leachates, or indirectly by degradation of potential habitats for biota. The RHS methodology
limits the identification of pollution to a simple presence or absence within the stretch. Within
the urban river, however, pollution is an important consideration where sewage effluent is
often a primary component of the river’s base flow, and industrial effluents and runoff from
17
roads are also frequently major water quality impacts. To address the increased potential for
pollution in urban river channels, eight pollution characteristics are recorded (Table 1.8). The
first five of these measures are assessed on an Absent/Present/Extensive (APE) scale, where
extensive relates to more than 33% of the stretch being affected by a particular pollution type.
Clarity of the water is assessed as being good (water is clear and channel substrate is clearly
visible), poor (the channel substrate is not visible due to high turbidity) or average (where the
clarity of the water falls between these two extremes). This measurement is partly dependant
upon discharge. However, the survey should be carried out under dry conditions when water
levels are ‘normal’, thereby reducing adverse effects on the clarity of the water through
increased water flows. The final two pollution measures (number of input pipes and number of
leach points) are assessed as a total count of each within the stretch. The number of input pipes
within a stretch serves to identify likely points of pollution pulses characteristic of urban
rivers, while the leach points identify more diffuse pollution that may be important in the
general water quality of the river.
Table 1.7
Comparison of attributes assessed in the cumulative measurements within the RHS and
URS surveys
RHS CUMULATIVE
MEASUREMENTS
Land use (within 50m of bank top)
Bank Profiles
Trees and associated features
Channel Features
Recent Management
Features of Special Interest
Choked Channel
Nuisance Plant Species
Alders
Overall Characteristics
Number of Riffles, Pools and Point bars
Artificial Features
URS CUMULATIVE MEASUREMENTS
Land use (within 50m of bank top)
Bank Profiles
Trees and Associated Features
Habitat Features
Recent Management
Features of Special Interest
Choked Channel
Nuisance Plant Species
Alders
Wildlife Species Present
Extent of Pollution
Bank Protection
Other Information
Other measures of quality relate to the riparian structure of the channel. Riparian structure is
particularly important in the urban environment where rivers may act as wildlife corridors
(Goode, 1989) and so the RHS assessment of trees within the stretch has been retained within
the URS. Measurements describing the structure of the bank top and face, overlying vegetation
(such as trees) and the recent management of the riparian zone give an integrated impression
of the riparian structure of the stretch being surveyed, that is fundamental to its ecological
potential. Trees are often not present along modified channels, where appropriate substrates
for tree growth are frequently limited. Furthermore, trees may be removed from stretches
where they are perceived to be a significant contributing factor to flooding. Their presence,
however, is important where shading reduces macrophyte growth within the channel, and also
for providing cover for both aquatic and riparian species.
18
Table 1.8
Types of pollution recorded in the URS
Pollution Type
Water Odours
Sediment Odours
Oils
Surface scum
Gross pollution
Clarity
Number of input pipes
Number of leach points
Description
typically refers to the classic sewage effluent odours, but may also
include industrial chemical aromas such as ammonia. Especially
important where the pollutant is colourless.
describes the characteristic odour emitted by anoxic sediments, and can
easily be tested by inserting a ranging pole through the surface of the
sediments.
can be extensive in urban channels where surface runoff from roads is a
major source of pollutants, and is characteristically seen floating on the
water surface, or released from toxic sediments during testing for
sediment odours.
Consists of foams caused by the presence of phosphate detergents
during surface mixing. It is usually seen by sewage outfalls, but may
also refer to floating mats of small particles of debris and thin foams
forming in slow flowing waters.
A characteristic of urban channels and incorporates larger items of
urban trash including shopping trolleys, mechanical parts, and litter
Primarily assessing the level of suspended materials, but may also
include the discharge of coloured effluents
These include outfalls, land drainage pipes and small industrial outfalls.
Characteristic of drainage from contaminated land. The leachate may
contain ferric matter which can be readily identified by its orange
colour.
Nuisance plant species are another major problem in urban environments where frequent
disturbance of the banks and surrounding corridors provide ideal habitats for species such as
Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed, allowing them to out-compete native vegetation
and degrade the riparian zone. The RHS method of recording nuisance species using a
presence/absence measure is expanded to incorporate a simple cover scale within the URS, to
reflect the increased extent and potential importance of these species: Absent; Single
Individual (a single plant within the stretch); Isolated Clumps (a few small clusters of plants
within the stretch); Frequent (present in 25-33%of the stretch); Extensive (>33% of the
stretch).
Other measures of quality include recent management, wildlife species present,
alders/diseased alders present (required for the national assessment of the incidence of
Phytophthora root disease – Environment Agency, 1997), choked channel and other
information (i.e. presence of weirs etc). These are recorded as presence/absence measurements
in an identical manner to the RHS methodology. Land use 50m from the bank top is also
recorded in the URS, but using the Level 2 land use types described in Table 1.5. Furthermore,
land use for each bank is also recorded as a percentage cover to provide greater resolution in
the assessment of the riparian structure and quality in the urban channel.
The presence of habitat features (equivalent to the RHS channel features) can be useful in the
assessment of both urban channel quality, and urban channel recovery. Habitat features can be
grouped into two distinct types: flow habitats or flow types (e.g. riffles, runs), and physical
features such as bars (Table 1.9). Flow types are the surface expression of three-dimensional
flow structures, and are associated with characteristic circulation patterns, ranges of flow
velocities and bed forms within the river. The RHS methodology recognises ten categories of
flow type, ranging from free fall to no flow (dry bed). It is important to assess their extent in
19
urban channels, where even the smallest amount of variation in flow type may provide enough
refugia for fauna to successfully inhabit a relatively hostile environment. Physical habitat
features, such as riffles, pools and bars, are both an influence on and a result of hydraulic
factors and are, therefore, important in both rural and urban habitat surveys as their varied
morphological, sedimentological and hydraulic characteristics define the mosaic of physical
habitats seen at the stretch scale. The RHS methodology assesses the presence of habitat
features on an APE scale. However, some types of engineered stretch may produce a relatively
homogenous channel in terms of its habitats, and the presence of even small amounts of
variation may be sufficient to increase the ecological quality of the channel. Therefore, a more
accurate assessment of the frequency of these habitats is required for the URS. To this end, the
flow habitats are measured as a percentage of the stretch, whereas other habitat features are
recorded as a total count of each type present within the stretch. The presence of special
features such as open waters, and adjacent wetland types such as bogs and fens are recorded in
the URS in an identical manner to the RHS
Table 1.9
Categories of habitat features recorded in the URS
FLOW HABITATS RECORDED
AS % OF STRETCH
Cascade
Rapid
Riffle
Run
Boil
Glide
Pool
Ponded Reach
Marginal Deadwater
Stagnant water
OTHER HABITATS RECORDED
AS TOTAL NUMBERS IN STRETCH
Exposed bedrock
Rock/boulder
Waterfall
Backwater
Sand/Silt deposits
Mature Island
Unvegetated mid-channel bar
Vegetated mid-channel bar
Unvegetated point bar
Vegetated point bar
Unvegetated side bar
Vegetated side bar
Woody debris
Other measures of channel heterogeneity and recovery are also included in the cumulative
measurements. The amount of each bank protection type is recorded as a percentage of the
stretch. This expands upon the URS spot-check measurements which can be used to describe
the mosaic of protection types along the stretch. When the two measures (spot-check and
cumulative) are combined they can be used to assess which types of protection are more
important in the urban channel. Bank profiles are of fundamental importance for the
assessment of channel recovery through erosion and sediment deposition. Two different types
of bank profile can be present in a stretch, namely natural and artificial profiles. Artificial bank
profiles are particularly significant in urban channels since they provide particular riparian
habitats and offer characteristic controls on flow hydraulics. However, ‘natural’ features of
recovery, which are incorporated in the RHS, such as eroding banks are also important in the
urban channel, as are natural components of the bank profile such as undercutting of the bank
toe, which provide refugia during spate flows, and may also be indicative of the onset of
recovery processes in highly modified stretches. Recovery processes allow natural profiles to
become superimposed upon the artificial profiles. Artificial and natural bank profiles are,
therefore, grouped separately within the URS, and each bank profile type within these two
groups is recorded as a percentage of the stretch, rather than the APE scale used in the RHS.
This allows even small amounts of recovery, for example through undercutting of the bank
toe, to be incorporated into the survey, whilst still maintaining a reliable assessment of the
actual level of modification.
20
4.
Aggregate Indices from URS Data (Primary
Environmental Indicators)
This section describes the current list of primary environmental indicators that is derived from
URS data. As the URS is refined, so the indicators will also be refined to produce the final set
for the SMURF project.
Many aggregate indices can be developed using the URS data and can mainly be attributed to
one of three groups, which describe ‘Materials’, ‘Physical Habitat’ and ‘Vegetation’ features
(Table 1.10). The derivation of each index is described in this section, where each index is
constrained to have a similar numerical range (typically 0 to 10 or 20, –9 to +9).
Table 1.10
Synthetic Indices derived from the Urban River Survey relating to three different sets
of characteristics of urban river stretches: ‘Materials’, ‘Physical Habitat’ and
‘Vegetation’. (Note, properties that may indicate degradation in water quality are
included in the vegetation list because water quality and vegetation are expected to be
related)
MATERIALS
Proportion Immobile Substrate
PHYSICAL HABITAT
Number of Flow Types
SEDCAL
Proportion Immobile Left Bank
Materials
BANKCAL (left bank)
Dominant Flow Type
Number Natural Bank
Profiles
Proportion Natural Bank
Profiles
Number Artificial Bank
Profiles
Proportion Artificial
Bank Profiles
Number of Habitat Types
Proportion Immobile Right Bank
Materials
BANKCAL (right bank)
BANKPROT (left bank)
BANKPROT (right bank)
Proportion No Bank Protection
(NONE)
Proportion Biodegradable
Protection (BIO)
Proportion Open Matrix Protection
(OMP)
Proportion Solid Protection (SOL)
4.1
VEGETATION
No. Channel Vegetation
Types
Channel Vegetation Cover
Dominant Channel
Vegetation Type
Total Tree Score
Total Tree Feature Score
BANKVEG (left top)
BANKVEG (left face)
BANKVEG (right top)
BANKVEG (right face)
Total Pollution Score
Number of Input Pipes
Number of Leach Points
INDICES DESCRIBING MATERIALS
Channel Substrate: The channel substrate was separated into two components: immobile
materials (concrete, brick, and bedrock) and mobile materials (silt, sand, gravel etc). The URS
records the predominant mobile substrate at each spot check (10 cross sections along a 500m
stretch) according to categories compatible with the Wentworth particle size scale. The
SEDCAL index converts these spot-check measurements into an approximate average particle
size for the stretch in phi units.
21
SEDCAL = (-8*BO) + (-7*CO) + (-3.5*GP) + (-1.5*SA) +(1.5*SI) + (9*CL)
(BO + CO + GP + SA + SI + CL)
(BO=boulder; CO=cobble; GP=gravel-pebble; SA=sand; SI=silt; CL=clay)
An index of the proportion of the stretch with bed reinforcement is:
Proportion Immobile Substrate = number of spot-checks with immobile materials x 10
number of spot-checks
Bank Materials: Since data are gathered separately for the two river banks in the URS, the
synthetic indices were also estimated for both banks, although they could also be combined to
give a stretch summary.
The URS records similar measurements for mobile bank materials as for the channel substrate
based upon the Wentworth scale. The BANKCAL index converts these spot-check
measurements into an approximate average particle size for the stretch banks in phi units
BANKCAL = (-9*BO) + (-8*CO) + (-2.5*GS) + (4*EA) + (9*CL)
(BO+CO+GS+EA+CL)
(EA=earth)
The proportion of Immobile Bank Materials (concrete, concrete and brick, laid stone, sheet
piling, and bedrock) is calculated in the same way as for the Immobile Substrate.
Bank Protection: The various types of protection used in urban channels can be placed into
different categories according to their attributes, and then be ascribed a numerical value
relating to their durability and permeability (Table 1.11).
Table 1.11 Bank Protection Types
CATEGORY
None
Biodegradable
Open Matrix
Solid
BANK PROTECTION TYPES
None; Washed Out
Reeds; Wood piling; Willow spiling
Rip-rap; Gabions; Builders waste
Concrete; Concrete and Brick;
Brick/Laid stone; Sheet piling
NUMBERICAL VALUE
0
1
2
3
The numerical value given to each category can then be used to calculate the level of
protection for each bank.
BANKPROT = (0*NONE) + (1*BIO) + (2*OMP) + (3*SOL) x 3
(NONE+BIO+OPM+SOL)
The overall type and level of protection for the stretch can be taken from the URS cumulative
measurements. The types of protection are grouped into the four categories of none,
biodegradable, open matrix and solid, and the proportion of the stretch that these types
represent is then calculated. From this the proportion of No Bank Protection (NONE),
Biodegradable Protection (BIO), Open Matrix Protection (OMP) and Solid Protection
(SOL) can be estimated.
22
4.2
INDICES DESCRIBING PHYSICAL HABITAT FEATURES
Flow Types: The water surface pattern of flow types reflects the three-dimensional flow
patterns induced by the form and roughness of the channel, and is therefore an important
indicator of flow hydraulics and channel bed morphology.
Two indices help to characterise this hydraulic and morphological diversity. Firstly, the
dominant flow type gives an indication of the general character of the stretch. This can be
easily determined from the spot-check measurements, by selecting the flow type which is
recorded the most times. Where two categories occur with equal frequency, the flow habitats
recorded in the cumulative measurements can be used to determine the dominant flow type
within the stretch. The flow types in part reflect the flow velocity, and so the dominant flow
type can be arranged along a flow velocity gradient (Table 1.12) from faster flow types (index
value 1) to slower flow types (index value 10). Secondly, the number of flow types within a
stretch is important for looking at hydraulic and bed form variability, and can be ascertained
by a count of the number of different flow types recorded in the spot-checks. Together these
indices give an indication of the heterogeneity of the stretch in terms of its hydraulics, and
associated channel morphology.
Table 1.12 Index Values for the dominant flow type within the stretch.
Flow Type
Free Fall (FF)
Chute Flow (CH)
Chaotic Flow (CF)
Broken Standing Waves (BW)
Unbroken Standing Waves (UW)
Rippled (RP)
Smooth (SM)
Upwelling (UP)
No Perceptible Flow (NP)
Dry Channel (DR)
Index Value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Habitat features: While the nature and extent of habitats within a stretch can be drawn from
the raw URS data, a simple count of the number of different habitat types observed within
the stretch (not the total number of habitats) provides a simple, integrative index of the
diversity of habitats that are present. This integrative index represents a count of in-channel
habitat types, including both the morphological (e.g. bars, islands, riffles, pools etc.), and
hydraulic (flow type) habitats that are present.
Bank Profiles: The URS recognises two different categories of bank profiles, artificial and
natural, reflecting the historical management practises and the level of bank profile recovery
from past modification. Where the urban channel shows evidence of recovery processes
through erosion, natural profile components become superimposed on artificial profiles, giving
a total of observed profiles of over 100%. Similarly, where an urban channel displays two
different types of modification (e.g. two stage channel and reinforced banks), the total
proportion of artificial profiles can exceed 100%. It is important to distinguish channels that
show evidence of recovery, in order to explore the effects that different types of engineering
may have on the urban channel. To this end, separate indices are developed for natural and
artificial bank profiles. The number of natural profiles and the number of artificial
profiles comprise two of the indices from this group of measurements, which can be
ascertained from the cumulative measurements. This gives an impression of the heterogeneity
of the channel in terms of its bank characteristics, and provides an indication of the processes
23
involved in the recovery of the channel. The proportion of artificial profiles, and the
proportion of natural profiles comprise the final two indices to come from this group of
measurements. The quantitative nature of these measurements allows a simple index to be
derived by dividing the recorded percentage by 10.
4.3
INDICES DESCRIBING VEGETATION STRUCTURE AND BIOMASS
Bank Face and Top Structure: One of the characteristics of urban channels is the uniformity
of the bank in terms of its vegetation. To reduce the roughness of the channel, tall vegetation
tends to be removed, thus increasing the capacity of the channel. The URS records the
vegetation structure in the same way as the RHS (B = bare, U = uniform, S = simple and C =
complex). The spot check measurements can be combined into a simple index of the bank
vegetation, where higher values represent increased vegetation complexity. The engineered
channel may display different complexities of vegetation between the banks, and between the
top and face of the bank. Therefore a calculation is made for each bank top and face structure
using the following calculation:
BANKVEG =
(0*B) + (1*U) + (2*S) + (3*C)
(B+U+S+C)
x3
The presence of trees is calculated on a scale of absent to continuous for the entire length of
the stretch river banks, and the right and left bank can be added together to give a
representative index of cover or total tree score for the whole stretch (None = 0,
Isolated/Scattered = 1, Regularly spaced = 2, Occasional Clumps = 3, Semi-continuous = 4,
Continuous = 5).
Tree features (shading of channel, overhanging boughs, exposed bankside roots, underwater
tree roots, fallen trees, coarse woody debris) represent the degree to which marginal trees
directly influence the river channel environment. They are measured on the APE scale, where
Absent, Present, and Extensive score 0,1 and 2 respectively. The scores for each of the 6
features are added together to give an index of tree influence along the stretch called the total
tree feature score. Combined, these two scores represent the extent and level of impact of the
different tree associated features.
Channel vegetation: To fully assess the nature of the macrophytes within the channel, the
measurements taken in the spot-checks can be separated into 3 important components.
The number of channel vegetation types can be used to indicate the macrophyte diversity,
which in turn can help to indicated water quality. The number of vegetation types consists of a
simple count of the number of different macrophyte groups over the stretch. The number of
types could therefore be as high as 10 in stretches that possess high species numbers.
The dominant channel vegetation type can be easily determined by a simple addition of the
percentage cover each species has at each spot-check. However, in order to represent this
numerically for future analysis, the vegetation types must be ranked according to the
properties they possess, or the effect they have on urban channels. In terms of management,
each macrophyte type will have a greater or lesser effect on the attenuation of flow in the
channel. Thus the macrophyte types can be arranged on a linear scale, from low to high,
according to their potential effects on the hydraulic regime of the stretch (Figure 1.3). Where
non-visible channels are recorded two possible options exist to explore the data fully. Where a
complete spot-check is recorded as being non-visible the measurement is excluded from the
result and the number of spot-checks used is reduced. Where partial measurements of channel
vegetation have been recorded and the rest of the channel is not-visible at any individual spot-
24
check, the vegetation measurements are extrapolated to represent the entire channel at that
spot-check.
The average cover of the channel combined with the dominant vegetation type, can be used to
assess diversity, but may also help to highlight areas where the management of macrophytes is
important. The calculation of the average channel vegetation cover is taken for the entire
stretch. Again where non visible channels are present, the same principles apply for assessing
the entire stretch as for calculating the dominant macrophyte species. Once this has been
achieved, a simple average is taken of all the macrophyte types to give the % cover for the
stretch. To maintain the same range as other indices, the percentage result is divided by a
factor of 10. It is reasonable to hypothesise that different engineering types will promote
different levels of channel cover, and diversity in terms of the macrophyte growth, although
this might be confounded by the amount of shading present at different stretches.
Low attenuation of flow
High attenuation of flow
Figure 1.3
0 = NON
1 = LML
2 = FFL
3 = AMP
4 = EBH
5 = FAL
6 = RFL
7 = SLL
8 = SBL
9 = SFL
10 = RSR
none
Liverworts / mosses / lichens
Free-floating
Amphibious
Emergent broadleaved herbs
Filamentous algae
Floating leaved (rooted)
Submerged linear-leaved
Submerged broadleaved
Submerged fineleaved
Emergent reeds/sedges/rushes
Macrophyte types grouped according to their perceived attenuation of flow in urban
channels
The pollution measurements can be divided into three different indices. The total pollution
score can be calculate from the first 5 variables listed in Table 1.8, which are measured on the
APE scale, and the clarity which can be assigned a similar score where good, average and poor
score 0,1 and 2 respectively: the higher the score, the higher the extent of pollution within the
stretch.
The number of leach points and the number input pipes comprise the other 2 indices for
pollution. The total number of each that is measured in the URS (Table 1.8) is converted into a
score as follows:
Number of Score pipes
0
=
0
1
=
1
2
=
2
3
=
3
4
=
4
5
=
5
6-9
=
6
10-14 =
7
15-20 =
8
20-30 =
9
>30
=
10
25
5.
Classification of Urban River Stretches (Secondary
Environmental Indicators)
A set of preliminary secondary environmental indicators has been devised by analysing URS
surveys of approximately 60 stretches of the River Tame, West Midlands. These are described
in this section. They will be refined and tested through additional survey and analysis within
the remainder of the SMURF project, but the following descriptions indicate the current state
of development of this aspect of the project.
5.1
DATA ANALYSIS
Cluster analysis was applied to the derived aggregate indices (primary environmental
indicators) that are described in section 4. Because of the similar numerical range in these
aggregate indices, cluster analysis was applied to the untransformed data. Various clustering
algorithms were tested (within-group average linkage, between-group average linkage,
centroid and Ward’s algorithms). Ward’s clustering algorithm was finally selected because it
produced distinct, compact clusters of similar size conforming to the view that the algorithm
generates ‘the most appealing overall results in terms of cluster size, shape (compactness),
density and internal homogeneity’ (Griffith and Amrhein 1997, p220). Once the cluster
analysis was complete and a dendrogram describing the hierarchical agglomeration of the
objects had been produced, the identification of the number of clusters or classes that best
described the data was inevitably somewhat subjective. The dendrogram was inspected to
identify agglomerations to between 3 to 8 clusters and the number of clusters selected within
this range was based on the generation of the most clearly defined groups within the
dendrogram and the degree to which the clusters had an interpretable meaning. The validity
and meaning of the clusters was assessed by (i) applying non-parametric (Kruskal Wallace)
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify which of the individual attributes provided a
statistically significant (P<0.05) discrimination between the clusters; (ii) inspecting box and
whisker plots for each of the discriminatory attributes to identify which clusters were
discriminated by each attribute and the strength of the discrimination; and (iii) identifying
whether the clusters were comprised of any distinct engineering types, which might suggest a
causal impact of engineering on cluster characteristics.
Using the indices listed in Table 1.10, cluster analysis was applied separately to stretch scores
on the ‘Materials’, ‘Physical Habitat’ and ‘Vegetation’ aggregate indices. The aim was to
identify groupings within the data that could be arranged along a gradient reflecting increasing
complexity or naturalness in relation to these three secondary environmental indicators, so that
the defined classes could represent ‘intensities’ of the ‘Materials’, ‘Physical Habitat’ and
‘Vegetation’ Environmental Indicators. The clusters or classes to which each surveyed stretch
was allocated for each of these three environmental indicators was also compared with the
type of engineering that had been applied to assess whether there were links that would
support the direct modelling of scenarios of changed engineering modification on stretch
characteristics or whether the defined clusters were independent of engineering type.
26
5.2
MATERIALS ATTRIBUTES
The indices used within the Materials cluster analysis (Table 1.13), reflect the character of the
natural bed and bank materials and of the artificial materials used to reinforce the channel
banks and/or bed. Therefore, the attributes that underpin the cluster analysis reflect the
potential susceptibility of the river bed and banks to modification through fluvial processes. 5
classes of River Tame stretches were identified (Figure 1.4). The proportion of Immobile
Substrate and the proportion of Biodegradable Protection were not significant in
discriminating between the clusters. In contrast, the calibre of the bank materials
(BANKCAL), and the type and amounts of bank protection (BANKPROT, No Bank
Protection, Open Matrix Protection, Solid Protection) were found to be important
discriminatory attributes. Although the engineering type was not included in the analysis, this
is clearly reflected in the level of reinforcement and so, not surprisingly, each cluster was
found to be comprised of stretches that possessed distinct types of engineering modification
(Table 1.13). This is reflected in the names given to the clusters (Figure 1.4, Table 1.13).
Similarity
-330.95
-187.30
-43.65
1MCW
3GFS
1SUP
3CLP
8BLB
2LIE
3CBL
1SCW
2BMU
2BMD
2BPV
2IKW
3GCS
1TAW
3MCB
3OWF
4SLB
1URB
4NRB
4FML
6WOB
4OSP
4TIE
6TSD
4FMD
4TDH
6OCR
4HTC
4PPG
5HRG
5FST
4THD
5CHP
6HMH
7OFW
7AQR
7SMP
7FRG
8DEB
5TLL
5WRN
5LFR
7CHT
7SDC
7CVR
7FDR
8WST
5KNF
8PKF
7GFR
5KCR
7LCA
4FMU
6PHW
7SBQ
7SCC
7TMP
100.00
Lightly Modified (n = 17)
Figure 1.4
Moderately
Modified (n = 7)
Modified
(n = 7)
Semi-natural (n = 24)
Heavily
Modified (n = 2)
5 clusters of urban river stretches defined by their materials characteristics
27
Table 1.13 Descriptions of the characteristics of stretches attributed to different Materials clusters
Group Name; abbreviation
SEMI-NATURAL; SN
LIGHTLY MODIFIED; LM
MODIFIED; M
MODERATELY
MODIFIED; MM
HEAVILY MODIFIED; HM
5.3
Description of discriminating
Primary (Materials) Indices
Low levels of bank protection.
Coarser substrates and bank
materials.
Low levels of bank protection.
Finer substrates and bank
materials.
Coarser bed and bank materials.
Moderate levels (ca. 50%) of
open matrix protection (gabions,
rip rap etc).
High (ca. 90-100%) proportions
of open matrix protection and
moderate levels (ca. 20-50%) of
immobile bank materials.
High levels (ca. 100%) of
immobile bed and bank materials
(concrete, laid stone etc.).
Description of broad
Engineering Characteristics
More natural planforms and
cross sections (through natural
processes, recovery or
restoration)
Artificial (mainly straight)
planforms, and cross-sections
but with limited reinforcement
Artificial (mainly sinuous)
planforms, and cross-sections
with significant reinforcement
Artificial (mainly straight)
planforms and cross-sections
with extensive reinforcement
Heavily engineered, straight
planforms and high levels of
reinforcement.
PHYSICAL HABITAT ATTRIBUTES
Cluster analysis of stretches according to their Physical Habitat attributes (Table 1.10),
explored the degree to which channels of similar bank and bed form (reflected by
geomorphological features and flow patterns) can be identified. 5 clusters were found to be
appropriate to describe the data (Figure 1.5). All indices apart from the dominant flow type
were highly significant in discriminating between the 5 clusters and the clusters were found to
be closely associated with distinct types of engineering modification (Table 1.14). This is
reflected in the names given to the clusters (Figure 1.5, Table 1.14).
28
Similarity
-1707.91
-1105.28
-502.64
100.00
Uniform Stable (n=31)
Uniform
Active
(n=11)
Recovering (n=26)
Natural (n=18)
Highly Artificial (n=20)
Figure 1.5
5 clusters of urban river stretches defined by their physical habitat characteristics
Table 1.14
Descriptions of the characteristics of stretches attributed to different Physical Habitat
clusters (clusters arranged in order of number of habitat types)
Group Name;
abbreviation
RECOVERING; Re
UNIFORM ACTIVE;
AA
Discriminating Habitat
Characteristics
High levels of active recovery
from engineering intervention. 810 habitat types.
5-7 habitat types and a variety of
flow types. Evidence of active
channel recovery.
SEMI-NATURAL;
SN
5-7 habitat types.
UNIFORM STABLE;
AS
Low numbers (1-4) of habitat
types, and two major flow types
(glides and runs) dominating.
Little evidence of channel
recovery from engineering
intervention.
Low numbers (1-4) of habitat
types.
HIGHLY
ARTIFICIAL; HA
29
Description of broad
Engineering Characteristics
Moderate proportions of artificial bank
profiles (30-60%) and high proportions
of natural bank profiles (80-100%).
High proportions of Artificial Bank
Profiles (ca. 100%), and moderate to
high proportions of natural bank
profiles (ca. 20-50%).
Very low proportions of artificial bank
profiles and very high proportions of
natural bank profiles.
High proportions of Artificial Bank
profiles (ca. 100%) and low proportions
of Natural bank profiles (ca. 0-10 %)
Very high proportions of artificial bank
profiles 160-200% (typically two types
of bank modification overlying each
other, e.g. 2 stage channels with
reinforced banks). Low proportions of
natural bank profiles.
5.4
VEGETATION ATTRIBUTES
A final cluster analysis was primarily concerned with the characteristics of the in-channel and
bank vegetation, although indices relating to potential or actual levels of water pollution were
also included, since these are likely to provide an important influence on channel vegetation. 8
clusters were identified within the data. All of the variables included in the cluster analysis
showed significant discrimination between clusters with the exception of the number of leach
points. The dominant channel vegetation type (unvegetated channels, algal dominated
channels, and vegetated channels) discriminated three large clusters (Figure 1.6) which were
also associated with the total pollution score. The highest pollution scores were associated
with the vegetated channels and the lowest scores were associated with the unvegetated
channels.
Similarity
-348.49
-198.99
-49.50
1MCW
7SCC
1SUP
4SLB
1TAW
4PPG
1SCW
4OSP
2IKW
3GFS
2BMU
4HTC
4NRB
3GCS
8BLB
8PKF
8WST
8DEB
2BMD
3CBL
3CLP
3OWF
2BPV
7AQR
6PHW
5TLL
4THD
5CHP
5FST
7FRG
6HMH
7OFW
7CHT
7SDC
6OCR
7GFR
7LCA
2LIE
4FMD
4FMU
5KCR
6TSD
4FML
6WOB
7FDR
3MCB
7SBQ
4TDH
4TIE
1URB
7SMP
5HRG
5KNF
7CVR
5LFR
5WRN
7TMP
100.00
VLC (n = 13)
Figure 1.6
VHD
(n = 5)
VMC (n = 8)
ALC
(n = 2)
AMC (n = 9)
ULT (n = 8)
UMC
(n = 4)
UHC (n = 8)
8 clusters of urban river stretches defined by their Vegetation characteristics
The descriptions of the 8 clusters are as follows:
Vegetated Channel clusters: These channels typically possess high channel vegetation cover
(80-100%) and intermediate to high pollution scores. They are dominated by submerged
macrophytes such as Potamogeton pecitinatus, or reeds and rushes, with low to moderate total
tree scores and tree feature scores, variable bank face vegetation complexity and consistent
intermediate levels of the bank top BANKVEG index indicating a ‘simple’ level of vegetation
complexity.
VEGETATED LOW COMPLEXITY CHANNELS (VLC) are dominated by submerged fine
leaved macrophytes such as P. pectinatus, and display low macrophyte diversity with 2-4
types present in the stretch. Typically, these stretches also exhibit low bank face BANKVEG
scores (2-3) equivalent to a relatively uniform bank face vegetation structure when compared
to the other vegetated channel groups.
30
VEGETATED HIGH DIVERSITY CHANNELS (VHD) are dominated by reeds sedges and
rushes (score = 10) and display a characteristic high diversity of channel vegetation types
(typically 7-8 types). These stretches possess higher tree feature scores (ca. 2-3) and bank face
BANKVEG scores (ca. 3-4) than VLC channels.
VEGETATED MODERATE COMPLEXITY CHANNELS (VMC) support a variety of
different dominant channel vegetation types and a moderate number of channel vegetation
types (3-7 types). They possess moderate to high total tree scores (ca. 4-7), moderate tree
feature scores (ca. 2-4) and high levels of bank face vegetation complexity (ca. 5.5-6.5), all of
which are higher than for VLC and VHD channels and thus indicative of a more diverse and
heavy bank vegetation cover. Importantly, these stretches display much higher observed levels
of the total pollution score (e.g. urban trash, surface scum, oils etc) than all of the other 7
vegetation groups, which may be a significant influence on the channel vegetation.
Algal-dominated Clusters: These stretches are dominated by filamentous algae, an indicator
of eutrophic waters (Holmes et al, 1997). The 2 groups of stretches within this category
possess 60-80% channel vegetation cover by this single channel vegetation type and possess
total pollution scores of 3-4. There are, however, some distinct differences between the two
algal-dominated clusters.
ALGAL LOW COMPLEXITY CHANNELS (ALC) possess only one channel vegetation type
and very low diversity, combined with very low total tree scores (ca. 2) and therefore no tree
features. The stretches in this cluster show low bank face (ca. 0-2) and bank top (ca. 1-3)
BANKVEG scores indicating near-bare banks. This suggests that channel engineering may be
more severe than for other clusters of stretches and is verified by reference to the engineering
type of these stretches, which is typically fully reinforced with concrete.
ALGAL MODERATE COMPLEXITY CHANNELS (AMC) display several (4-5) different
channel vegetation types, as well as moderate total tree scores (ca. 4-6) and tree features scores
(ca. 4-5), moderate bank face (ca. 2-5) and bank top (ca. 2-5) BANKVEG scores. Thus they
present a far greater extent and complexity in river corridor vegetation than ALC channels.
Unvegetated Channels: are characterised by relatively low average channel vegetation cover
of approximately 20 to 50%.
UNVEGETATED LOW TREE EXTENT CHANNELS (ULT) typically possess 3-4 different
channel vegetation types with 20-40% average channel vegetation cover. The total tree score
(3-4) equates to an isolated scattered presence of trees on the banks, with moderate tree feature
scores (ca. 0-3). Both of these scores are lower than those observed for UMT and UHT
channels (see below). This group is also distinguished from UMC and UHC channels by its
moderate bank face (ca. 2.5-3) and bank top (ca. 3-5) BANKVEG scores, suggesting a
relatively uniform bank vegetation complexity with some variation produced by the presence
of the trees.
UNVEGETATED MODERATE COMPLEXITY CHANNELS (UMC)
Similar to ULT channels, the stretches in this cluster have 3-4 channel vegetation types with
20-40% channel vegetation cover. This group is characterised by the presence of moderate
total tree scores, with a value of 7-8 representing occasional clumps/semi-continuous trees,
and a higher tree feature score (ca. 2-3.5) than ULT channels. The cluster is clearly
distinguished by very high bank face BANKVEG scores (ca. 4-8) coupled with very low bank
top BANKVEG scores (ca. 0-2).
31
UNVEGETATED HIGH COMPLEXITY CHANNELS (UHC). Similar to ULT and UMC
channels, this cluster has a low channel vegetation cover, although within some stretches
channel vegetation cover reaches 40-60%. Stretches also display only 1-3 channel vegetation
types. The main discriminator of this group is the highest total tree scores (9-11), representing
semi-continuous to continuous cover, and the highest tree feature scores (ca. 5-6) of any of the
8 clusters. Characteristically, stretches in this cluster display low bank face BANKVEG scores
(ca. 1-2) and high bank top BANKVEG scores (ca. 6-8), which are essentially the reverse of
UMC channels, suggesting that high tree cover on the bank tops may be shading out
vegetation on the bank face within this group.
In summary, exploration of the properties of stretches within the 8 vegetation clusters
confirms that these clusters define distinct vegetation groups. The groups primarily reflect
three subdivisions of in-channel vegetation (unvegetated, algal-dominated and vegetated),
which are determined by both in-channel vegetation cover and type. Further subdivision is
driven mainly by the diversity of the in-channel vegetation for the algal-dominated and
vegetated groups, although there are also clear differences in bank vegetation characteristics
between groups. Unvegetated channels are subdivided into groups on the basis of very strong
contrasts in bank vegetation characteristics.
Although the vegetation clusters do not map strongly onto engineering type some associations
can be recognised between the three main in-channel vegetation groupings and channel
engineering. The vegetated channels, with the exception of the stretches within the high
diversity category (VHD), tend to possess artificial and predominantly straight planforms,
artificial cross-sections, and no reinforcement. The stretches also display uniform banks,
usually as a result of management practises such as mowing. The high diversity stretches are
semi-natural in character but with relatively uniform banks according to their engineering
type. The unvegetated stretches tend to display engineering types which possess artificial
meandering or straight planforms, artificial cross sections with a variety of levels of
reinforcement. These stretches also display simple to complex bank vegetation structure,
which would suggest that these stretches, though more engineered that the vegetated channels,
are not subjected to regular bank maintenance. The algal dominated channels comprise two
different types of engineering. Algal low diversity stretches are found where there has been
full bed and bank reinforcement with concrete, while algal moderate diversity channels are a
characteristic of recovering stretches.
5.5
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The classifications presented in sections 5.2 to 5.4 illustrate that there are three broad
secondary environmental indicators (Materials, Physical Habitat, Vegetation) which can be
used to allocate engineered stretches to 5, 5 and 8 different classes, respectively. These
secondary Environmental Indicators all appear to be related to the level and type of
engineering to some degree, although the strongest associations are with Materials and the
weakest are with Vegetation. In order to avoid having to rerun the entire cluster analysis every
time an additional stretch is added to the data set in order to identify the class to which the
stretch should be allocated, this section proposes three decisions trees (Figures 1.7 to 1.9) for
this purpose. These decision trees enable a newly-surveyed stretch to be allocated to an
appropriate ‘Materials’, ‘Physical habitat’ and ‘Vegetation’ class. The decision trees do not
incorporate all of the variables (primary environmental indicators) that were used to define the
classes because many of these are correlated. Thus, the decision trees incorporate the
minimum number of key variables that are needed to allocate a newly-surveyed stretch to the
various classes.
These decision trees will be tested and refined during the next phase of research within the
SMURF project.
32
Proportion (%)
Immobile Bank
Materials
0-40%
Proportion (%) -30%0
Bank Protection
41-100%
31-59%
60-89%
Protection
Type
31-59%
90-100%
OPEN
MATRIX
Proportion (%)
Artificial Bank
Profiles
0-50%
Materials
Class
SEMINATURAL
SOLID
³ 51%
LIGHTLY
MODIFIED
MODIFIED
MODERATELY
MODIFIED
HEAVILY
MODIFIED
Figure 1.7
Flow chart for allocating urban river stretches to the relevant Materials Class
33
34
1-4
Figure 1.8
8+
LOW
1-4
MOD
5-7
HIGH
8+
RECOVERING
25-100%
21-60%
LOW
1-4
MOD
5+
UNIFORM
STABLE
0-24%
Flow chart for allocating urban river stretches to the relevant Physical Class
MOD
5-7
HIGH
0-20%
SEMINATURAL
Ecological
LOW
Potential
Number of
Habitat
Features
Physical
Class
Proportion (%)
Natural
Bank Profiles
Proportion (%)
Artificial
Bank Profiles
LOW
1-4
MOD
5-7
UNIFORM
ACTIVE
25-100%
61-145%
HIGH
8+
LOW
1-4
MOD
5+
HIGHLY
ARTIFICIAL
146-200%
35
Figure 1.9
3.1 +
ULT
UMC
UHC
ALC
FAL
Flow chart for allocating urban river stretches to the relevant Physical Class
Vegetation
Class
Complexity
Average
Bank Face
Average
Bank Top
Complexity
0-3
6+
0-2
0-5
Total Tree
Score
1-2
NONE
Number
Macrophyte
Types
Dominant
Macrophyte
Type
AMC
3+
3+
VLC
0-5
0-5
VMC
0-5
OTHER
VHD
0-5
6.
Sector Scale Indices (Tertiary Environmental
Indicators)
Whilst the secondary environmental indicators can be used to assess the likely outcomes of
applying different management and engineering options to a stretch, the success of such
actions may be constrained by other, largely sector-scale, characteristics. For example:
·
·
·
If water quality is low, changes in physical habitat are unlikely to yield any ecological
benefit.
Certain changes in the engineering of reaches may be inherently unstable because of the
energy of sector-scale river flows, or may not meet flood-defence requirements.
Even if water quality and flow regimes do not present constraints on the outcomes of
changes in the secondary environmental indicators, land use and land availability may
restrict the space available for such changes.
Thus the tertiary environmental indicators provide simple indicators of such constraints on the
potential to achieve particular stretch – scale objectives.
(N.B. Where surveys are available within a stretch, many of the indicators described in this
section are recorded in the URS using existing data sources (see section 3). However, as a
result of the limited availability of such surveys, they may only be available for locations
elsewhere within the sector and so they are presented here as sector-scale indices).
6.1
FLOW-RELATED INDICATORS
The river flow regime is a constraint in terms of achieving flood defence targets (high flow
magnitude), ensuring that any stretch–scale modifications do not result in major channel
instabilities (high flow energy), and ensuring that there is sufficient aquatic habitat to support
species during low flows (low flow magnitude and depth).
To reflect the above sensitivities, flow indices including the mean annual flood magnitude
(and its unit stream power within stretches of differing width), the maximum recorded flow
and the 5, 50 and 95 percentiles of the flow duration curve are required for channel network
sectors.
6.2
WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
Water quality modifications found in urban rivers arise from three key sources: domestic and
sewage effluents, industrial effluents, and road runoff. Each of these effluents include different
and characteristic types of pollutant. Domestic and sewage effluents primarily contribute to the
nutrient enrichment of the river system through inputs of nitrogenous and phosphate
compounds. The exact nature of industrial effluents largely depends upon the industrial
processes being used. However, heavy industrial processes such as metal working may create
an increase in metal concentrations within the river (copper, lead, aluminium, iron cadmium
etc.). Surface runoff from roads increases levels of electrical conductivity, especially in winter
where salting of the roads is employed for de-icing. Lead and petrol derived hydrocarbons are
also components of road surface runoff.
Water quality indices have been developed across Europe in response to legislation controlling
the safety limits of sanitary determinants for bathing and drinking waters (e.g. EEC, 1975; EC
1991; 1994) and the perceived impacts that poor water quality has upon the ecology of river,
36
lake and marine systems. Typically, these individual indices have been combined to provide a
basic classification of water quality for any given sector of river. The water quality indicators
can, therefore, based upon the requirements of the water quality classification developed for
use in each member country.
Whilst many indicators could be used to represent sector-scale water quality, the SMURF
study of the River Tame catchment will use the River Ecosystem Classification (RE), which is
currently used within the UK and combines 8 key parameters to assign a river to one of 5
classes (Table 1.15). The listed indices are derived from either continuously monitored data, or
from spot-check samples taken monthly. The former is clearly preferable as the indices are
based on a larger sample of determinations. However, continuous monitoring in urban rivers is
typically limited to only one or two sites within a catchment and therefore, the RE
classification is often based upon a spot sampling regime. In order to ensure that results are not
biased by uncharacteristic local events (such as a single pollution episode), the RE rating is
based upon a minimum of 12 samples, with a recommended monthly sampling regime.
Table 1.15 Water Quality Criteria for defining River Ecosystem Classes (from NRA, 1994)
Class
Do
(%)
BOD
Mg/L
Total
Ammonia
Un-Ionised
Ammonia
pH
Hardness
Dissolved
Copper
Total
Zinc
RE1
80
2.5
0.25
0.021
6-9
RE2
70
4.0
0.6
0.021
6-9
RE3
60
6.0
1.3
0.021
6-9
RE4
50
8.0
2.5
-
6-9
RE5
20
15.0
9.0
-
-
<10
>10 and <50
>50 and <100
>100
<10
>10 and <50
>50 and <100
>100
<10
>10 and <50
>50 and <100
>100
<10
>10 and <50
>50 and <100
>100
-
5
22
40
112
5
22
40
112
5
22
40
112
5
22
40
112
-
30
200
300
500
30
200
300
500
300
700
1000
2000
300
700
1000
2000
-
6.3
BIOTIC INDICATORS
The combined effects of degraded channel morphology and water quality within urban rivers
is often an equally poor ecological community. Contemporary bioassessment classification
systems are typically based upon the natural distribution of species within river systems and
their tolerance to environmental conditions and pollution, and can be used to assess levels of
sub-lethal stress within the system. Most European countries have developed, or are
developing, biotic classification systems similar to those developed for water quality, based
upon the response of the benthic macroinvertebrate community to poor water quality.
Therefore, the indicators for biotic integrity of the river can be based upon the classification
developed by each member country.
37
The present study will adopt the UK approach to biological classification of rivers. This has
been based the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) scoring system, developed
between 1976 to 1978, and revised in 1981 (Hawkes, 1997). It assigns a score from 1 to 10 to
families of taxa according to their perceived tolerance to pollution (mainly organic pollution).
Each family scores once within the sample, and the scores for each taxa are added together to
give a total score for a site. This score can then be used within a classification index such as
the General Quality Assessment to assign each site to a class according to its quality of benthic
invertebrate community (Nixon et al., 1996).
The need for a more predictive approach to river management instigated the development of
the River InVertebrate Prediction And Classification System (RIVPACS), a computer-based
tool that predicts the list of taxa that should be found at any given site according to the
physical and chemical conditions within the channel (Wright et al., 1993). This type of
prediction can be used as a reference condition for assessing the level of degradation at a site
due to water quality problems. In order to ensure that the system can be fully integrated into
river management, the taxa list can be used to produce predicted BMWP and ASPT scores.
The predictive capability of RIVPACS and its ability to produce a reference condition for
polluted rivers, has allowed its incorporation into the General Quality Assessment (GQA)
employed by river managers in the UK (Nixon et al., 1996).
The GQA scheme grades rivers into 6 classes ranging from A to F where A represents high
quality and F represents poor quality rivers (Table 1.16). The observed and predicted BMWP
and ASPT scores are used to produce an ecological quality index (EQI) which is used to
classify each site, where the observed value is divided by the predicted value.
Table 1.16 The GQA classification of rivers according to their biological quality incorporating
RIVPACS derived EQI indices (EA, Pers. Comm).
GQA GRADE
A
B
C
D
E
F
6.4
INFERRED
QUALITY
Very good
Good
Fairly good
Fair
Poor
Bad
EQI TAXA
(BMWP)
> 0.85
0.70-0.84
0.55-0.69
0.45-0.69
0.30-0.44
<0.30
EQI ASPT
1.00
0.90-0.99
0.77-0.89
0.65-0.76
0.50-0.64
<0.50
BMWP SCORE
>95
68-95
51-67
35-50
13-34
0-12
LAND USE AND LAND AVAILABILITY
The URS directly records land use at both stretch and sector scale (Table 1.5). These data form
a final class of tertiary environmental indicator since they represent land use, land quality or
open land availability constraints on the engineering options that may be considered for a
particular stretch.
38
7.
Combining Indicators to Address Scenarios of
Change
The preceding sections have described the derivation of primary and secondary environmental
indicators at the stretch scale and tertiary indicators at the sector scale.
During the SMURF project attention will be devoted towards combining these indicators to
assess stretches and consider management scenarios. At this stage, we give an outline of how
this might be approached.
The secondary environmental indicators allocate a stretch to different classes according to
its Materials, Physical Habitat and Vegetation characteristics. Initial work has shown that the
type of engineering applied to a stretch has a significant influence on the class to which a
stretch is allocated, with the strongest associations being apparent in the Materials classes and
the weakest in the Vegetation classes. As a result, the consequences of changed engineering
can be explored in relation to these three classifications, and the influence of scenarios of
vegetation and water quality management can be additionally explored in relation the
Vegetation classification. Thus the secondary environmental indicators provide a simple
means of characterising the physical properties of a stretch and their dependence upon
engineering and to some extent water quality and vegetation management and thus considering
the consequences of changes, primarily in engineering but also in vegetation and pollution
management.
If more detail of the physical character of a particular stretch is required, then the primary
environmental indicators can provide that detail, supported where necessary by information
from the raw URS records.
However, in considering scenarios of engineering change the tertiary environmental
indicators provide initial information on constraints which may limit the potential success of
any particular option. Thus water quality indicators can support an assessment of whether any
genuine in-channel ecological benefit can be gained. In essence, if water quality is poor, then
no improvement in physical habitat will yield an improvement in the aquatic ecology of the
stretch. Under such circumstances, changes in engineering may yield aesthetic benefits and
improvements in riparian ecology, but water quality improvement will be essential before the
in-channel ecosystem can benefit.
In addition, flow-related indicators can provide an initial assessment of the likely stability of a
change in engineering by considering, for example, the unit stream power at bank-full stage.
They may also be of ecological significance in indicating whether low flows will be sufficient
to support an enhanced aquatic ecosystem. Moreover, a combination of flow and water quality
indices, may allow consideration of the consequences of different flow regulation scenarios for
water quantity and quality within a stretch.
Finally, some simple sector-scale tertiary indicators relating to floodplain land use and flood
plain width indicate whether there are constraints in land availability or land quality that may
prevent certain engineering options. For example, a restricted flood plain or presence of
contaminated land could place severe constraints on engineering options that include a change
from a straight to sinuous river planform.
39
8.
References
Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T. and Witmer, R.E. 1976. A land use and land cover
classification system for use with remote sensor data. US Geological Survey Professional
Paper 964
Beechie, T.J. and Sibley, T.H. (1990) Evaluation of the TFW Stream Classification
System on South Fork Stillaguamish Streams. Water Research Centre Project
No A-164-Wash.USA.
EEC (1975). Directives concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the
abstraction of drinking water in the member states. 75/440.EEC. Official Journal L194/39 25
July 1975.
EC (1991) Council Directive of 21st May 1991 concerning urban Waste Water Treatment. EC
Council Directive 91/271/EEC
EC (1994) Proposal for a council directive on the ecological quality of water. COM (93) C90final. Brussels, 15/6/94. 94/0152 (syn).
Environment Agency, 1997. River Habitat Survey: 1997 Field Survey Guidance Manual,
Incorporating SERCON. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
Fox, P.J.A., Naura, M. and Scarlett, P. 1998. ‘An Account of the Derivation and Testing of a
Standard Field Method, River Habitat Survey’. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 8, 455-475.
Frissell, C.A., Liss, W.J., Warren, C.E. and Hurley, M.D. (1986) A Hierarchical
Framework for Stream Habitat Classification: Viewing Streams in a Watershed
Context. Environmental Management, 10(2), 199-214
Goode, D.A. 1989. ‘Urban Nature Conservation in Britain’. Journal of Applied Ecology 26,
859-873.
Griffith, D.A. and Amrhein, C.G. 1997. Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Geographers.
Prentice Hall: USA.
Hawkes, H.A. 1997. ‘Origin and Development of the Biological Monitoring Working Party
Score System’. Water Research, 32, 964-968.
Holmes, N.T.H., Newman, J.R., Dawson, F.H., Chadd, S., and Rouen, K.J. (1997) Mean
Trophic Rank: A User’s Manual. Environment Agency R&D Draft Technical Report
694/NW/05.
Kirk, J.T.O. 1994. Light and photosynthesis in aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Leopold, L.B. and Wolman, M.G. 1957. River channel patterns: braided, meandering and
straight. USGS Professional Paper No. 282B
40
Meador M.R., Hupp, C.R., Cuffney, T.F. and Gurtz, M.E. 1993. Methods for characterizing
stream habitat as part of the national water-quality assessment programme. US Geological
Survey Open File Report 93-408.
Newson, M.D. 2002. ‘Geomorphological concepts and tools for sustainable river ecosystem
management’. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 12, 365-379.
Nixon, S.C., Clarke, S.J., Dobbs, A.J. and Everard, M. 1996. Development and Testing of
General Quality Assessment Schemes. NRA R&D Report 27, HMSO, London, UK.
NRA (1994) Water Quality Objectives: Procedures used by the National Rivers Authority for
the purpose of the surface waters (River Ecosystem Classification) regulations. NRA Bristol.
Pitcairn, C.E.R. and Hawkes, H.A. 1973. ‘The role of phosphorus in the growth of
Cladophora’. Water Research, 7, 159-171.
Raven, P.J., Fox, P., Everard, M., Holmes, N.T.H. and Dawson, F.H. (1997) River
Habitat Survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to habitat quality.
In: Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? Boon, P.J. and Howell,
D.L. (Eds.) The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, pp 215-234.
Wadeson, R.A. and Rowntree, K.M. (1994) A Hierarchical Geomorphological Model
for the Classification of South African River Systems. Proceedings of a joint
South African and Australian workshop. Cape Town February 7-11th, South
Africa.
Wharton, G. 1995. ‘Information from channel geometry-discharge relationships’. In: Gurnell,
A.M. and Petts, G.E. (eds.), Changing River Channels, 325-346, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Wright, J.F., Furse, M.T. and Armitage, P.D. 1993. ‘RIVPACS – a technique for evaluating
the biological quality of rivers in the UK’. European Water Pollution Control, 3, 15-25.
41
42
PART 2
CITIZEN CONSULTATION AND
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
43
44
1.
Background
Sustainable Management of Urban Rivers and Floodplains (SMURF) is an EU LIFE
Environment demonstration project. SMURF looks to change the way that land use and water
management planning is carried out within urban floodplains. It also provides an opportunity
to trial the practical application of the Agency’s emerging plans and policies for the Water
Framework Directive.
A key objective of the SMURF project is to carry out:
Extensive citizen consultation to define the local requirements/objectives for the
future management of the river system and demonstrate the approach used.
The consultation and involvement programme has been designed with reference to experience
in a number of environmental decision-making areas as well as other specific catchment
management consultation projects in the UK and Europe. Discussion at the project start-up
Workshop held in Birmingham has assisted in fine-tuning the details of the programme.
45
2.
Programme Objectives
The following objectives form the basis of the programme:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Application of deliberative processes that optimise social and expert learning and
involve citizens and stakeholders in the decisions to be made
Involvement of people during the lifetime of SMURF and beyond
Recognition of the diverse social and ethnic backgrounds within the area
Recruitment of participants in the process who are broadly representative of local
interests
Payment of a small fee and expenses to participants as recognition of the time that
they will need to devote to the process
Attainment of community and stakeholder consensus on the priorities for the future
sustainable management of the River Tame.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the process from the viewpoint of participants and
stakeholders
The following key issues have been considered in the design of the programme:
·
The River and its management will be a new issue for many that may not seem like an
immediately personal issue
· Sustainable river management will be a new concept to many
· Socio-economic diversity along the River, even within the City itself
· Diversity of types of ‘public’ – e.g. local residents, fishermen, local
businesses/workers, visitors
· Diversity of ethnicity and hence cultural attitudes to the river
· Problem of defining geographic area (e.g. City versus catchment) and recognition of
differences of experience of the river and of the condition of river in the
urban/industrial centre compared to suburban and urban/rural fringe areas
· Overlap with the flood management strategy
The programme will engage stakeholders and citizens. Stakeholders are defined as those
groups and individuals with defined interests (regulatory, economic, social, conservation) who
have already expressed an interest or have involvement with the management of the river.
Citizens are defined as individuals who live and/or work in the area but who are not involved
in organised stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder and citizen involvement in the project will provide feedback in different ways:
·
·
·
input into the project to develop a community perspective of sustainable urban river
management
input into the development of a GIS tool to view data on sustainable urban river
management, and
feedback to develop a perspective of the issues and barriers to engaging businesses in
sustainable urban river management and local decision processes.
The programme will bring together three sectors identified by the project team:
·
·
·
Local community citizens
Environmental NGO stakeholders
Local business community stakeholders
46
3.
Programme Elements
Phase I (July/August 2003) of the programme will involve stakeholder meetings and
interviews with key stakeholder groups identified by Birmingham City Council and the
Environment Agency. These will inform the selection of other stakeholders and citizens for
Phase II but also provide important early feedback for the development of the GIS tool and
will assist in defining the relevant issues for sustainable river management within the Tame
catchment.
Phase II (August-December 2003) will comprise an extended workshop-based process
involving Community citizens. Participants will include people from local groups and
organisations that are representative of the community interests and socio-demographic
characteristics within the study areas, however participants will not represent the views of any
particular interest or group. Three groups of about 20 people each will be recruited (August).
The workshop process will:
1. Gain feedback and insight from the local community to identify and develop community
aspirations for the River Tame catchment.
2. Define the community priorities in developing a sustainable river catchment
Phase III of the programme will relate to the stage of the site-specific demonstration projects
(see below).
3.1
LOCATION OF CASE STUDY AREAS
The River Tame in Birmingham has a diverse catchment, which includes industrial,
commercial and residential areas. The river ranges from being a ‘natural’ meandering river to
a straightened river - contained within a concrete channel - to a culverted river underground.
The case study locations will endeavour to reflect different relationships between the river and
local communities. Importantly the City has a complex canal system that in parts has
undergone major regeneration work, such that it is a high profile part of the City landscape
(e.g. around Brindley Place). It will be necessary to identify overlaps in, and the importance
of the role that rivers and canals play in people’s urban environment.
Some guiding principles have been developed to assist in defining the case study locations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To identify contrasting types of urban area – residential, industrial, rural etc.
To identify contrasting river experiences – natural river, contained river.
To identify a location where the river has been regenerated.
To identify a location where the flooding has been a local issue.
Discussion with stakeholders will assist in defining the areas where recruitment will focus.
Initial ideas include:
1. Perry Bar / Handsworth
2. Kingfisher project area – Yardley/Bordsley.
3. Castle Vale / Castle Bromwich area (will capture Rivers Tame / Cole and Birmingham and
Fazeley Canal).
4. Kings Norton (captures River Rea and Worcester and Birmingham canal) area has
experience of recent flooding by Rea.
47
3.2
COMMUNITY GROUP RECRUITMENT
Three community groups will be developed, consisting of up to 20 individuals who can bring
insight to different community interests, for example, parents with children, religious groups,
residents groups.
A fundamental element of any citizen involvement programme is to provide an opportunity for
the public at large to be aware of and understand the process that is going on. To assist with
this, local community representatives will be sought who can link into and feedback to a wider
number of people, for example, the chair of a local history group or a religious leader. This
provides the opportunity to inform the wider community but to also bring on board wider
interests and concerns.
A community assessment will be carried out in order to develop a group that generally reflects
the local community interests. Discussions will be held with Birmingham City Council and
other stakeholders in order to ascertain the community makeup, interests, issues and concerns.
3.3
WORKSHOP PROCESS
Community workshop groups will meet a total of four times, which includes a site
visit/briefing day. The course of the meetings will (i) inform and develop participants’
understanding of sustainable river management and (ii) to develop a set of criteria to
determine their requirements for future river management.
The three workshop groups will come together in a final consensus meeting where a common
set of criteria and priorities will be developed, along with a secondary set of issues which will
be dependent on a case by case basis. This consensus meeting of the community’s findings
will be widely publicised and the attendance of other stakeholders encouraged.
Terms of reference will be developed and agreed with the workshop participants in advance of
the meetings.
3.4
ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS AND BUSINESS STAKEHOLDERS
There are some specific areas of interest within the project that will be researched in addition
to the Citizen Involvement process.
Key environmental NGOs will meet at a one off workshop to help inform them of the project
and the process to be followed and to gain their input and insight into their criteria by which to
define a sustainable urban river environment and gain insight into their requirements as users
of the GIS tool.
Key business stakeholders will also meet to identify the key issues and constraints affecting
their involvement in local decision making processes and what their priorities might be for the
local river environment.
3.5
PHASE III – SITE-SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT
This phase will involve recruitment of 2 groups (i.e. linked to areas of the demonstration sites)
of up to 20 people per group with some participation continuity from Phase II plus some sitespecific interests. Two discussion meetings per group will highlight and discuss issues
relating to the demonstration projects. This phase will be developed in detail during Phase II.
48
3.6
EVALUATION
A questionnaire will be used to evaluate the whole involvement programme, both at the
beginning of the process and again at the end (both of Phase II and Phase III). The evaluation
will examine (i) people’s expectations of the process and their involvement, (ii) their pre- and
post-programme views of the river and its management, (iii) their views of the effectiveness of
the involvement programme, (iv) how they might contribute in the future.
49
50
PART 3
GIS BASED CATCHMENT
PLANNING SYSTEM
51
52
1.
Introduction
1.1
OBJECTIVES
This section of the report describes the methodology for the development of the SMURF GISbased catchment planning tool.
Specific objectives are to:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Outline the information that will be delivered and tested in the GIS planning tool.
Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the various partners, stakeholders and citizens
with respect to the GIS tool.
Provide a description of the proposed system, including the technology on which it will be
based, the processes and procedures that it will implement and the models it will use.
Highlight innovative tools and techniques that the system will deliver.
Set out the audit procedures for the development and use of the system.
Identify success deliverables for this part of the SMURF project.
Propose potential future development options.
A reference list and list of web-sites, where further, more detailed information can be found, is
also provided.
This proposed methodology outlines the technical specification of the SMURF system. The
decisions for selecting the methods and techniques reported here are based on the review of
the benchmark of IT tools and procedures for integrated catchment management as given in
the Benchmark Report (HR Wallingford & Wallingford Software, 2003). This ensures the
most suitable technology currently available in the market place is used.
In developing the new planning tool, it is important to prepare detailed specifications and
outline a thorough methodology in order to achieve the following criteria.
·
·
·
·
·
The system should have clear functionality.
The system should be developed efficiently and within a structured framework.
The system should meet the needs of the intended users and stakeholders.
The system should advance the techniques available for managing urban environments,
encompassing integrated catchment management and land use planning.
The project must be delivered on time and to budget.
This process of system specification and method development has been discussed and agreed
by project partners. However, the proposed methodology is not intended to restrict the
adoption of new ideas and innovations and it is envisaged that the methodology will be
developed beyond the project span.
1.2
STRUCTURE OF REPORT
This methodology report follows a Benchmark Report on existing information management,
organisational roles and IT tools and procedures. The methodology report describes the
SMURF system in a logical progression from the Benchmark Report. The structure of both
reports is outlined in Table 3.1.
53
Table 3.1
Structure of reports
Benchmark Report
Section
Introduction
Information
Set out aims of report
What is required for the WFD?
Where does the data come
from?
Roles &
Responsibilities
Enabling Technology
Processes &
Procedures
Audit
Conclusion
Who does what?
Outline the roles of planners,
environmental modellers,
scientists, etc.
What technology is used at
present?
Methods that are followed.
What test/check/quality
assurance procedures are in
place for existing systems?
Summary of the main points of
the report that must be carried on
to the methodology report.
Methodology report
Set out aims of report
What subset of information will be
delivered and tested in SMURF and
why?
Who will do what with SMURF?
Who will use the system and how do we
meet their needs?
Explanation of the technology platform
to be used for SMURF testing and why.
Details of procedures to be adhered to
in order to deliver the above
information with the above technology.
How do we know that our
demonstration has been successful?
What future modifications are required?
Summary of the SMURF GIS tool
methodology.
In this report the sections on enabling technology and processes and procedures are combined
into one single chapter called system description. The chapter on system description also
outlines the innovative aspects that the system will deliver. Furthermore, the audit section is
divided into two chapters; one on audit and one on future development.
Specifically this report is structured as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.3
Introduction
Information
Roles and responsibilities
System description
Audit
Future development
BENCHMARK REPORT
The Benchmark Report sets out the existing state of integrated catchment management in the
UK, with reference to the rest of Europe, covering information management, organisational
responsibilities and the most relevant and advanced technology in this field.
The report outlines the principles of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which is one of
the key drivers for the SMURF project. The most important tenets from this legislation, that
are essential to take on board in the specification for the SMURF software and its future use
and management are:
·
·
There must be good systems for the management of different types of data from a variety
of sources.
There must be good analysis tools for dealing with spatial data.
54
·
·
A range of stakeholders, including the public, should be consulted and actively involved in
catchment management.
The management of the catchment and the information on which the management is based
should involve specialists and non-specialists.
In the UK there is extensive collection of data on the Tame catchment, which is stored in
various databases, analysed by different specialists and reported in different ways. The
Environment Agency for England and Wales (the Agency) is responsible for monitoring water
quality, biology, fisheries and flooding, which will be key inputs to the SMURF system.
Water Companies are responsible for water supply, removing and treating wastewater, and for
storm water drainage. Local authorities are responsible for land management and
development planning, and have a host of information and a number of procedures to assist
with this work. Other stakeholders, including the Highways Agency, Local Wildlife Trusts,
British Waterways and, in addition, the public themselves, will all have useful information and
ideas to contribute to the management of the catchment and they will all benefit from having
access to information from the SMURF system.
The report outlines the benchmark for GIS, modelling, integrated systems, procedures and
decision support systems. There have been a number of projects, in the UK and abroad, that
have developed software focussed on aspects of integrated catchment management.
Production of a system that enables management of a variety of issues and that is not
excessively complex, is a challenging task. Most current systems approach the problem by
using a combination of functionalities from GIS, databases and models. A successful system
will require good information management and audit of all processes and procedures. The
report sets out some established methods for doing this, which will be crucial to incorporate
and build on in the development of the SMURF tool.
1.4
BASIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
A principal aim of the GIS planning system will be to link land use planning activities with
their resultant impact on the riverine and drainage environment. The system will display land
use and other catchment-wide information, alongside the varied datasets used by the main
partners. In addition will be the inclusion of tools that can determine how planning decisions
could impact on the river, floodplain and drainage network.
The SMURF proposal document outlined the overall system deliverables.
‘The project will deliver a GIS-based Land-Use planning model for the period 2004-2015,
enabling accurate predictions to be made on the effect of introducing future developments in
the river basin. It was proposed to demonstrate the latest IT techniques for river basin
modelling (integrating land-use, ecological status, flood risk and water quality aspects).
The benefits of such a system are:
·
·
·
·
Stable flow levels will allow reintroduction of key riverine species (Habitats Directive
output);
Reduced flood episodes will boost business investment around the river;
Improved water quality will benefit companies who utilise water in industry;
Enhanced amenity will boost economic development, increase land values and add to
quality of life, with social benefits.’
55
‘The model system will enable land-use planners, water managers and policy makers in the
West Midlands region to test management options to identify a programme of measures
required to achieve the objectives of the WFD. The model will give graphical representation
on the combined effects of multiple planned developments, land-use changes, climate change
factors and other variables that can be input. The software will be user-friendly and give
animated results. The model is expected to be effective for 10-12 years and will directly
determine where the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water invest in flood defence and
water quality infrastructure in that period.’
From the above proposed objectives the following key requirements of the system have been
identified:
·
The display of information in a GIS environment, covering land use, river quality and
ecology, flood levels and extent, above and possibly below-ground infrastructure,
pollution sources, groundwater etc.
·
A user interface that will allow for easy access and display of the above information,
including model outputs. The system must be accessible in part to other stakeholders and
citizens, a variety of interface routes will need to be assessed.
·
A set of models and other tools that will predict impacts on the river and floodplain, of a
variety of scenarios and associated changes to the urban system (e.g. change in the
quantity or quality of polluting discharges, change in runoff from a proposed development,
change in the morphology of a watercourse). Such predictions may be derived by
deterministic, stochastic or rule-based modelling.
·
The definition of a set of questions, (‘what-if’ scenarios) that the user will be able to test
the impact on the catchment (e.g. change in effluent discharge or abstraction,
incorporation of different developments), which in turn form part of a user-defined
scenario.
·
The system must be sustainable.
The scope and content of the proposed SMURF system could therefore be very extensive and
beyond the timescale of the project. The methodology described below has therefore tried to
build on existing best practice, making use of several existing modelling approaches and their
associated data. In addition, demonstrations will be provided for new techniques and
approaches, by providing examples based on pilot areas within the catchment. This will allow
a range of options to be demonstrated, allowing for future development, beyond the end of this
project, for those that are considered to be of most use within integrated catchment planning.
1.5
SUMMARY
This part of the report describes the methodology for the development of the SMURF GISbased catchment planning system. This introduction has outlined the objectives and the
structure of the report, and has recapped the main points from the Benchmark Report (HR
Wallingford & Wallingford Software, 2003) so that the direction of this methodology report is
clear. The SMURF tool will promote and support integrated catchment management and land
use planning and will help to facilitate the implementation of the WFD. The intended users of
the SMURF tool are the three main partners in the SMURF project; the Environment Agency,
Severn Trent Water and Birmingham City Council; as well as other stakeholder organisations
and the public. The SMURF software will be a demonstration system and the methodologies
will be applicable to other urban catchments across Europe.
56
2.
Information Available
2.1
DATA
The majority of the data relevant to the SMURF project is collected by the Agency, as
environmental regulator and competent authority for implementation of the WFD. This
includes information on water quality, ecological status, flooding, contaminated land and
hydrology. Severn Trent Water have additional data collected as part of its routine operational
duties, or as part of a specific drainage modelling study. Each of these data types will be
discussed in turn, in terms of what is available and what is planned to be included within the
SMURF system.
2.1.1 Water resources
Data under this heading comprise all measurements of water quantity, and are therefore crucial
in terms of modelling the water balance or movement of water within the catchment. The
following types will be included in the SMURF system:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Mean daily river flows
Water levels
Daily and short-period rainfall
Groundwater levels
Evaporation and other climate information
Abstraction volumes (licensed and actual)
Sewage treatment works’ discharges.
The location of all flow and rainfall measurement sites operated by the Agency are listed in
Table 3.2. Comparison of the river flow, or rainfall, with water quality or one of the biological
indicators, will allow the SMURF system user to identify cause and effect. For example, to
determine whether water quality problems are more prevalent during low flow periods, or
more often associated with heavy rainfall. Graphical display of data and comparison of
observed and simulated data will be one of the key features of the system.
Table 3.2
Hydrometric data in the Upper Tame Catchment
Site name
Sheepwash
James Bridge
Park Hill
Bescott
Sandwell
Hampstead Road
Perry Park
Walsall Road
Brookvale Road
Water Orton
Lea Marston
Site no.
4101
4104
4105
4081
4084
4877
4087
4876
4878
4003
4080
57
Data type
River gauging
River gauging
River gauging
River gauging
River level
River gauging
River gauging
River gauging
River level
River gauging
River gauging
Table 3.2
Hydrometric data in the Upper Tame Catchment (continued)
Willenhall
Little Hay
Great Barr
Whitacre
Huntsgreen
Tamworth
Elford
94320
97900
95148
97263
97503
99712
99829
Manual (daily) raingauge
Willenhall
Lea Marston
Saltley
3151
3288
3781
Tipping-bucket raingauge
Walsall Wood
3275
Climate station
Groundwater is also an important aspect of the upper Tame catchment, principally because of
two features:
·
·
contamination by 200 years of industrial activity
decline of industrial activity in recent decades is associated with an underlying rise in
groundwater levels in certain areas.
Facilities will be included within the GIS system to display groundwater elevations. These will
be compared with the ground surface and the location of the sewer or surface water network to
identify areas where the rising groundwater could cause potential problems, e.g. infiltration
into drainage infrastructure. Areas at risk from groundwater flooding would also be displayed.
2.1.2 Water Quality
River water quality is sampled at some 65 sites within the watercourse and canal network, as
part of the Agency’s assessment of compliance against chemical quality objectives. A discrete
spot sample is taken at each site approximately every month, which is then analysed in an
accredited laboratory for a defined suite of determinands. The list of determinands of
relevance to the SMURF project, as agreed with the Agency Water Quality Planners, is given
below in Table 3.3.
The water quality of groundwater is also assessed by the Agency, for a different set of
determinands.
58
Table 3.3
Determinands stored in SMURF system database
Determinand
Temperature
pH
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Ammonia
Nitrate (TON)
Suspended Solids
Cadmium (total)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Chloride
Ortho-phosphate as P
Copper (total and dissolved)
Zinc (total)
Dissolved Oxygen (%sat)
Dissolved Oxygen
Units
°C
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
% saturation
mg/l
Data covering the period 1990 to 2003 will initially be included within the system database,
which covers a range of different climatic conditions. This is regarded by the Partners as
sufficient for the planning purposes covered by the SMURF system. In addition to the actual
raw water quality data, the Agency has also provided details of the river quality classification
actually achieved for certain years (according to the GQA scheme), and compliance with the
River Quality Objective (RQO) standard. One key feature of the SMURF system will be to
test how the water quality will change as a result of some form of intervention. This will be
assessed against the GQA grade achieved and compliance with the RQO assigned to each
reach.
As well as the routine sampling, there are 2 automatic, quality monitoring stations (AQMS) at
Water Orton and Lea Marston, where certain parameters are measured continually and data
stored in the Agency system every 15 minutes. These data are used to identify short-term
variations in the determinands. For example, there are strong diurnal changes in DO, caused
by the normal growth cycle of the instream vegetation. Pollution incidents or the effects of
intense storms would also be captured in the AQMS data. An example dataset from the AQMS
will also be included in the system.
2.1.3 Biological Data
The principal biological data relevant to the SMURF system is that collected on macroinvertebrates, as part of the Agency’s routine sampling during the spring and autumn. These
data are used to calculate the Biological GQA grade. A fuller description of the analysis of
biological data, and the use of the RIVPACS procedure, is given in the Benchmark Report.
Fisheries data are often the key indicator for the biological health of a watercourse or
catchment. In the case of the upper Tame above Lea Marston, the river is so heavily
engineered and polluted by toxic metals (mainly copper), that it does not support a recognised
fishery, although fish are found there. However, this means that there are no fisheries sampling
sites within the area of interest; the most representative site being at Elford, some 16km
downstream of the Lea Marston lakes outfall. The species that are recorded here, and at sites
lower down on the Tame are given in Table 3.4.
59
Table 3.4
Fish species recorded at Elford (10/9/97)
Fish species
Chubb
Dace
Bleak
Common bream
Gudgeon
Roach
Perch
Pike
Eel species
2.2
GIS
The SMURF system is to be GIS-based so the availability and inclusion of all relevant GIS
layers is obviously a key consideration in the design of the system. Each of the three main
Partners uses a range of GIS products, with comprehensive datasets for their areas of interest,
comprising information for both internal and third party use. A full listing of all the GIS layers
that are currently planned to be included in the system is given in Appendix B. Ownership of
data is an important consideration and the licensing arrangements for use by the Partners and
by other stakeholders is being progressed.
In addition to the inclusion and sharing of existing GIS information, the SMURF system will
deliver new information, via the following two routes:
·
GIS layers of modelled river and drainage networks showing key features e.g. reaches and
nodes, and allowing easy access to model data and results.
·
new layers will be created for specific features of interest to the project (e.g. display of
Sustainable Indicators, suitability of different sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)
types).
As well as the comprehensive datasets held by the three key partners, other stakeholders will
be approached for additional information to include within the system. For example, the
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust highlighted the good datasets that are held within EcoRecord, the
local biological records centre for the Black Country and Birmingham. This includes mapping
of the location of conservation species, such as water vole and great crested newt.
2.3
MODELS
A large amount of river and drainage modelling work has already been carried out for the
upper Tame catchment. This includes the application of the SIMCAT water quality model and
flood risk mapping by the Agency, the UPM study of Severn Trent, and the specific hydraulic
modelling studies commissioned by the City Council. These studies already provide a wealth
of information and capability for use in the SMURF system. The aim will therefore be to
incorporate these models, into the system so that the results are available to a wider audience.
The following section summarises the main aspects of each modelling application that is
planned to be included in the SMURF system.
60
2.3.1 Water quality
There are two basic types of model that have been used to gain understanding of the water
quality within the upper Tame. These models are required to predict the polluting effects of
continuous discharges (those associated with sewage treatment works (STWs) or industrial
plants), or those associated with intermittent discharges that occur following rainfall.
For assessing the effect on river quality of continuous discharges, the Agency uses the
SIMCAT stochastic model. This produces output results, in the form of water quality statistics,
which are directly comparable to the river quality standards. The model also takes implicit
account of the uncertainties inherent in sampling water quality and the need for a statistical
comparison against the quality objectives. The Agency have recently taken delivery of a fully
calibrated model of the Tame, from upstream of the Wolverhampton reach to just downstream
of Elford (WRc, 2003). Continuous discharges need to be assessed across the full range of
flow conditions that occur during the year. In assessing the achievement of the water quality
objectives, the Agency determine this each year, using a rolling 3-year dataset to ensure that
meaningful statistics can be calculated. In the case of the Tame SIMCAT model, this was
calibrated against data for the period 1997 to 2002.
Basically, the SIMCAT model comprises information which describes the main features in a
catchment, which affect water quality. These include STW and effluent discharges,
abstractions, lateral inflows (representing surface or subsurface diffuse pollution), weirs and
tributaries. For each input, the underlying quality and quantity variation is described by a
probability distribution, which can simply be a mean and coefficient of variation, or can
include the variation over a year or day (by specifying the appropriate monthly or daily
values). Starting at the upstream end of the system, the SIMCAT model randomly samples the
flow and water quality of each input, mixing it with the water travelling downstream. It also
uses a simple routing scheme, linking discharge and velocity, to derive a time of travel that is
used when calculating the decay of non-conservative determinands. The simulated distribution
of flow and quality can be output at any node, such as an EA monitoring site, so that the
predicted results can be compared with the corresponding observed values. SIMCAT also
includes an auto-calibration feature, which adjusts parameters to match the observed data.
Because of its widespread use over many years, the SIMCAT model has been developed to
incorporate a Visual Basic interface that assists the user in building the model and in
displaying the results in tabular and graphical form. In addition, various other analysis tools
have been produced, particularly by WRc, which take the raw water quality data from the
Agency’s archive (WIMS), and produces the best statistical description for use within
SIMCAT. This process also provides an audit of the data and removes anomalous values. As
the existing modelling framework for SIMCAT is so well developed, the proposal for the
SMURF system is to link to the calibrated model input file, such that the input descriptions for
each feature can be selected and displayed against the SMURF GIS interface. Building of a
SIMCAT data file will be undertaken by experienced modellers, outside of the SMURF
system. In undertaking the range of ‘what-if’ scenarios, a facility will be provided within the
SMURF system to amend the data for various features in the SIMCAT model, and then to rerun the simulation. As with the SIMCAT model itself, the results will be available in tabular
and graphical form, but in this case, will be selected and displayed against the GIS backdrop.
An InfoWorks RS model is being developed at HR Wallingford to simulate the overall
hydrological response of the catchment. The opportunity will be taken to utilise the water
quality functionality of InfoWorks RS in the SMURF system. InfoWorks RS is a deterministic
model that requires time-series data to be specified for all model inputs, rather than statistical
distributions. The model will produce a time-series of results at each monitoring point. Such
results can be compared against the monthly spot samples or the AQMS values, although this
will be more involved than the corresponding comparisons in SIMCAT.
61
2.3.2 River flows and flooding
A separate study, the Tame Flooding Strategy, is being undertaken by the Agency at the same
time as the SMURF project (Environment Agency, 2002). This study is concerned with
producing a Catchment Flood Management Plan that will set out an agreed strategy for flood
management over the next 50 years. As part of the study, Halcrow are assessing existing
hydraulic models to test flood alleviation options in the future. The existing models have been
developed over the years with various software e.g. HEC-RAS, ISIS and flow regimes e.g.
steady, unsteady. They do not include floodplains. As part of the Tame Flood Strategy
project there is likely to be an onging collection of new data and development of a new model
incorporating features from existing models. The delivery of a new model is likely to be
outside the timescale of the SMURF project. A decision was taken to incorporate the best
available models existing in July 2003 into the development of the SMURF system.
The models of relevance to SMURF comprise an ISIS model of the Tame below Water Orton,
and a HEC-RAS model of upstream. Both models were developed originally by Jeremy Benn
Associates as part of Agency Section 105 flood mapping. HR has had to update these models,
and convert them to InfoWorks RS, independent of the Tame Flood Strategy project work
because of the incompatible timescales. Although flooding is an important issue in the Tame
catchment, the SMURF system will not focus on this aspect so as not to duplicate the outcome
of the Flooding Strategy.
It should be noted that only the Tame river is classed as main river and is the responsibility of
the Agency and that the local authorities manage all other minor watercourses (Rea, Cole,
Blythe etc). Hydraulic modelling of the minor watercourses is much less extensive, with
relatively few piecemeal models available for specific flooding investigations.
Each existing model will be converted to InfoWorks RS with each section (node) georeferenced. Once the hydrodynamic model has been successfully set up and run over the full
range of flows, it will be converted into an equivalent routing form. This will relate flows and
velocities at key nodes along the river, so that the underlying hydraulics are the same, but a
simpler channel representation can be used. This provides a planning tool that will allow
scenario simulations to be carried out in a much reduced run-time (typically 5 times quicker).
The routing model will incorporate a water quality module.
2.3.3 Sewer modelling and the UPM study
Some of the largest sewer models in use in the UK are those set up for the upper Tame
catchment by Severn Trent Water, comprising two models, either side of the river Tame, with
a total of 50,000 nodes. These models have formed the basis of an extensive UPM (Urban
Pollution Management) study, which has looked at the operation of the whole sewer and river
system, and where further investment is needed to mitigate against unsatisfactory operation.
Part of the sewer network is ‘combined’, where heavy rainfall will cause diluted raw sewage
to be discharged directly into watercourses via an extensive system of CSOs (combined sewer
overflows). As part of the study, WRc with the Agency and STW have set up and applied a
SIMPOL3 model of the river system, which very broadly simulates water quality in the river
and the impact of CSO and other discharges, including surface runoff and diffuse pollution
(WRc, 2003).
Clearly, there are several features of the UPM study and the SIMPOL3 model that are of
interest to the SMURF planning system. For example, SIMPOL3 includes a simplified
representation of the operation of each main sewer subcatchment area; this is one of the needs
identified for the SMURF system. Also, WRc have derived spatially-varying rainfall to apply
over the whole catchment; again, this has been identified as a requirement for the study.
62
Discussions over the full functionality of the SIMPOL3 model have only recently taken place
(July 2003), and it is therefore not clear which features can, or should, be included in the
SMURF system. However, Severn Trent Water is committed to making the UPM study
available to the project. It will be of great benefit for the SMURF system to incorporate the
results from the study.
2.4
THE URGENT RESEARCH PROGRAMME
URGENT (Urban ReGeneration and the ENvironmenT) was an NERC-funded thematic
programme of research into the urban environment, with a significant part of it centred on the
Tame catchment. The programme started in 1996, with all studies due to be completed by the
end of this year. The programme was concerned with stimulating the regeneration of urban
areas, through a better understanding and management of the interaction between natural and
man-made processes. Full details of the URGENT research outputs can be found on the web
site (http://urgent.nerc.ac.uk/).
There have been four main areas of investigation within the URGENT programme:
·
·
·
·
use and management of contaminated urban aquifers
biodiversity of urban habitats
modelling of urban corridors
air pollution.
In addition to developing a range of new techniques and tools for assessing and managing the
urban environment, there is additional data that could be assimilated within the SMURF
planning system. Not all of this can be achieved within the SMURF project timescales.
However, one of the key research studies was a new methodology for assessing and mapping
of urban river corridors. This is being developed into the derivation of Sustainable Indicators,
as part of the SMURF project, and is described in Part 1 of this report.
There were at least two associated research studies that applied the PHABSIM model to the
River Tame. Whilst it is not planned to include the PHABSIM model as part of the SMURF
system, it would be beneficial if some logical rules linking river hydraulics and the suitability
of the physical habitat derived from the study could be achieved by approximating the
procedures used in PHABSIM, to give a first-order assessment of whether morphological or
hydrological changes may benefit certain species.
2.5
SUMMARY
This section summarises data planned for incorporation in the SMURF planning system. It
should ideally be read in conjunction with the equivalent section in the Benchmark Report
(HR Wallingford & Wallingford Software, 2003), which gives more information on how the
various data sources are used by the Partners. Where possible, details of the specific GIS
layers or monitoring sites to be included are referenced.
The Upper Tame catchment has been the site of extensive research over the past decade, with
several key modelling studies having already been completed. There is therefore a wealth of
information that can be drawn upon by the SMURF project. One of the key decisions will be
to identify what data and existing tools are of most relevance to the project, in order to satisfy
the overall project aims.
63
3.
Roles and Responsibilities
The Benchmark Report established that it was important to consider the roles and
responsibilities of the project partners and other stakeholders and citizens so that the
functionality of the tool is targeted for all the users. It is also essential that
·
·
·
The intended use of the SMURF GIS tool is specified and understood.
There are people who will use it in their role.
There is an organisation or consortium with ultimate responsibility for the system beyond
the life of the SMURF project.
The specific functionality and use of the system is outlined in detail in Section 4. This section
outlines the issues associated with the roles of people who will use the system, and how the
SMURF system can be used to help them with their responsibilities. Addressing the last point,
the question of who has overall responsibility for the system, this issue will be discussed fully
and resolved during the final year of the project. Each partner organisation will be responsible
for making available data for subsequent updated versions for GIS layers.
3.1
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
The Benchmark Report set out the main responsibilities of the Agency that are particularly
relevant for the SMURF project. The Agency has set up a WFD Programme to implement the
requirements of the Directive and it will be important for this Programme and the SMURF
project to work closely. The Benchmark Report gave an overview of the Agency’s function in
the fields of chemical and biological water quality, fisheries, flood defence and discharges and
abstractions.
The system will bring benefits to planners and officers in several departments. Figure 3.1
shows the way in which it is envisaged the SMURF system will be used by the Agency to
support their roles in water quality, water quantity and flood management in particular.
Essentially, the SMURF system will:
·
·
·
·
enable the display and interrogation of spatial information
allow quick assessment of base data
analyse ‘what-if’ scenarios
help to assess the compliance of schemes with objectives/indicators.
64
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Live system
Scope
What ifs by EA
- rivers, lakes, g/water,
surface watercourses (min
value)
spot measurements
DATA
Indicators
Current status
- chemical - ecological
Flooding &
low flows
Base data for
assessment
Flood
strategy
- link between surface
and groundwater
generation of
WQ map
Wquant Flood
test against
objectives
What needs to
be done
Options
modelling
Plan
(SMURF OR EA?)
Figure 3.1
data
Automate in SMURF
include physical
indicators (eg weirs)
Compliance with
objectives/indicators for
each reach
Flow map
WQ
SMURF
Environment Agency work flows
65
- WQ improvements
- reduce flood risk
- sustainable fishery
The general benefit to all departments will be staff in one department will be able to link with
information from other departments and from the other partner organisations. This will
increase understanding of the catchment across several functions of the Agency.
Water quality planners within the Agency will gain automatic comparison of data at different
locations and for different time periods. This will help them to assess issues such as
determining the cause of failure of a reach to meet the River Quality Objectives (RQOs), or to
look at the compliance of a sewage treatment works. The SMURF system will link to their
commonly-used water quality modelling package, SIMCAT, which will allow the water
quality planners to investigate ‘what-if’ scenarios with the system. This will help with tasks
such as setting consent limits at a sewage treatment works to achieve revised RQOs.
Above advantages apply equally to the biology and fisheries officers in the Agency. The
spatial display of the sampling data will help with reporting the biological state of the river.
The mapping and graphs produced in the SMURF system will be easily transferable to reports.
The Agency planners currently use their own subset of GIS data, so the SMURF system will
allow access to additional data. Importantly, they will be able to view data from Birmingham
City Council, which will keep them more informed in the planning process.
3.2
SEVERN TRENT WATER
Severn Trent Water is responsible for water supply and sewerage. It carries out hydraulic
modelling of the sewerage network and also water quality modelling where appropriate. It
manages the distribution system, surface water drainage system, water treatment works and
sewage treatment works and must ensure that these assets are maintained and operated to high
standards to meet the requirements of the government regulator, the Office of Water Services
(OFWAT).
The key benefits that the SMURF system will bring to Severn Trent Water are
·
·
·
·
the ability to display and interrogate spatial information
the analysis of ‘what-if’ scenarios
the prediction of the wider impact of asset management options on the river environment
the assessment of the compliance of water treatment works and sewage treatment works
with objectives/indicators.
The SMURF system will give managers in Severn Trent Water an overview of their network
and links of their modelled areas with watercourses. This will help them to identify the causes
of problems in their sewer network. The ability to explore ‘what-if’ scenarios within the tool
will allow the investigation of options for improvement. This capability will extend beyond
that available in the current UPM modelling strategy in that it will consider future land use
developments and other related improvements.
Figure 3.2 shows the relationship of the SMURF system to the work flows in the water
company. The SMURF system will support the processes and procedures that are already in
place. It will bring a more comprehensive overview of information that has implications for
the management of their assets.
66
WATER COMPANY
“More informed information for asset planning and maintenance”
“Better assessment of ‘value for money’ of investment”
other data
Overview of
modelled areas and
links with w/courses
Data on network and known
problems
Sewer models
(quantity and quality)
Identify causes
Overview model
with common
network
Options for
improvement
What ifs
Detailed river
model (EA)
(quantity and
quality)
SMURF
Figure 3.2
Severn Trent Water work flows
67
3.3
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Birmingham City Council is a unitary local authority with responsibility for parts of the Upper
Tame catchment. The Benchmark Report described the roles and responsibilities of local
authorities, which cover the regulation of land use and development. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show
the work flows that were described in the Benchmark Report, and show how and where the
SMURF system fits into this structure.
LOCAL AUTHORITY (1)
Planning application process
Pre-Application
Stage
Planning
application
GIS
MapInfo
Access
D/B
New GIS layers
Constraints/
opportunities
identified
National,
regional & local
planning authority
policies
Identify
issues
Potential testing of
issues (by other groups)
External
inputs
SMURF
SMURF
Assess
issues
Consultation
responses
Recommendation to
Development
Control Committee
Decision
Planning conditions e.g.
Section 106 & SUDS
Figure 3.3
Local Authority planning application process
68
LOCAL AUTHORITY (2)
Development of planning policies
National, regional
& local planning
authority policies
Identify
opportunities and
constraints e.g.
through GIS
GIS layers
SMURF
Land use data
Consultation
Local needs
Generate Land
Use options
Assess options
Plan
Monitor & review
Figure 3.4
Local Authority development of planning policies
69
- Map
- Policies
cf objectives
water objectives
(co-ordinate with
EA & Water Co.)
SMURF
Examples of
opportunities and
constraints that
SMURF can identify:
• major contaminated
area/flow
• urban area showing
flow paths
• impacts of SUDS
From the above diagrams, it can be seen that the SMURF system will support the existing
planning processes in Birmingham City Council in a number of ways. Primarily, it will
provide new GIS layers for the planners to identify additional opportunities and constraints for
development. The new layers will contain information from the Environment Agency and
Severn Trent Water, so will bring a significant amount of water information to the City
Council GIS system. By enabling Birmingham City Council planners to see information on
the river catchment and on the sewer network, water issues can be taken into the planning
process at an earlier stage. At the click of a button on a map, planners should be able to view
the constraints to development of a proposed site.
The SMURF system can be used to assess the issues associated with planning applications and
planning policies with the ‘what-if’ scenarios. At this stage in the project, the planning
department at Birmingham City Council do not envisage using the SMURF system for
anything more than to view extra GIS layers, and would prefer for other departments within
the City Council to run ‘what-if’ scenarios and use the more complex functionality of the tool.
The responsibility for using the full capability of the SMURF system to generate scenario
results in GIS layers has not yet been assigned. It may be a possibility that Birmingham City
Council do not use the more complex functionality of the tool if the Agency and Severn Trent
Water scenario results are available in additional GIS layers. This would require close coordination between the partners after the SMURF project is finished.
The responsibilities of the Agency and of Birmingham City Council are set to change, to give
the City Council the responsibility for considering environmental matters for smaller
developments, with increased guidance from the Agency. The SMURF system will be of huge
benefit to Birmingham City Council in helping them to take on this role. At present they have
limited information on the environmental issues, and the SMURF system will deliver most, if
not all, of this to them. Being able to identify areas where development may seriously affect
the water quality of the river, or areas where development may overload the sewerage
network, for example, will allow them to plan more effectively.
3.4
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
The other stakeholders that may have an interest in the SMURF project include organisations
and citizens. The Benchmark Report outlined the responsibilities of identified organisations
such as the Highways Agency, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
Local Wildlife Trusts, developers and house builders, British Waterways and citizens, who are
likely to be involved.
These stakeholders and citizens will gain from the SMURF system through the system
demonstration on the Internet and on CD. This will enable them to view information which
they have requested and which they do not have access to at present. Their management
decisions will be based on more information from one location and they are more likely to
take into account water issues when developing plans and strategies.
The citizen involvement with the SMURF system will be largely as a result of those who are
actively engaged in the project (see Part 2). These people will be more informed on the
availability of the SMURF system on the Internet and on CD, and on the water issues and
planning issues in the catchment. It is more likely that these engaged citizens will become
involved in the future planning process. The wider public not directly engaged, may access
the tool on the Internet, being directed from searches, or the Agency web site, or by knowing
about the site through SMURF publicity. The aim is to ultimately give citizens a better
understanding of the water and land use planning issues in their area.
70
3.5
SUMMARY
The SMURF system will support the roles and responsibilities of the Environment Agency,
Birmingham City Council and Severn Trent Water, and will also be of benefit to other
stakeholders and citizens. This chapter has described the main advantages of the system to
each of these parties. The Agency will use the SMURF system for direct support of some of
their tasks, such as setting sewage treatment works consent conditions, assessing WFD
objectives and report writing. Severn Trent Water will use the system for identifying locations
where asset maintenance and investment should be targeted. Birmingham City Council will
use the tool to benefit from the extra GIS layers and the help with assessing smaller
developments. Stakeholders and citizens will gain a wider understanding of the catchment and
will have access to currently unavailable data. All of these parties will have a future role and
responsibility in the management of the upper Tame catchment and the land use planning in
Birmingham.
71
4.
System Description
HR Wallingford has the responsibility to build the GIS system. Wallingford Software are
contracted to develop the operating software and application.
The SMURF system seeks to provide a valuable demonstration of the benefits of an integrated
approach to the issues that arise in the Tame Catchment Area. It must allow a user to have
easy access to catchment data and be able to evaluate the effects of some changes to that
catchment data. However, the facilities provided by the SMURF system will not have the
flexibility and generality of a commercial product; it is a demonstration tool.
It is envisaged there will be two types of user of the system.
SMURF user – this person, probably from the Agency, STW or BCC and without detailed
modelling knowledge, wants simple access to spatial information, data and model results in
the SMURF system. This user may also run simple ‘what if’ scenarios.
SMURF expert modeller – this person is responsible for modifying the models outside the
SMURF application. The models are then imported and used within the application. The initial
models will be linked or created by HRW staff or by third parties but updated model versions
may be produced later by experienced Agency and STW staff.
Section 4.1 provides a description of the functionality to be provided by the SMURF
application.
Section 4.2 describes the models to be used by both types of users and describes the model
integration facilities to be provided by the SMURF application.
Section 4.3 gives information about the proposed outline design of the SMURF software and
considers some of the design issues that have already been addressed.
4.1
FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
Essentially, the software has three main functional areas:
The Data Manager provides the SMURF user with access to a wide range of catchmentrelated data via a simple click on a map. This is described in Section 4.1.1.
The Scenario Manager allows the user to ask some of the ‘what-if’ questions that are
normally only available to the experienced modeller and make the results available via the
Data Manager. The Scenario Manager is described in Section 4.1.2.
Model integration facilities provide the SMURF user with access to both InfoWorks and
SIMCAT models and allow results from drainage models to be included in the river models.
These are described in a later Section that provides more details about the models to be used.
See Section 4.2.
72
4.1.1 Data Manager
The SMURF Data Manager provides the SMURF user with access to a wide range of
catchment-related data via a simple click on a map.
SMURF-specific toolbar buttons will be provided for the following purposes:
·
·
·
·
·
·
Display statistics. These may either come from statistical summary data or may be
calculated from time-series data. In the latter case, the user may choose the time-period to
be considered e.g. 10 years.
§†
Display time-series in tabular form.
§†
Display time-series as graph.
§†
Display statistics or other data in a table for a long section of the river.
§†
Display statistics or other data in a graph for a long section of the river.
Display colour coding layers of any parameter e.g. water quality.
§
For these functions, any corresponding achievement or regulatory standards data will also be
displayed.
†
For these functions, more than one parameter and/or more than one point may be chosen and
will be displayed together. This will be valid if the time-period and data chosen are
compatible.
For details of the functionality provided by these toolbar buttons, see Appendix C.
Catchment Data
The Catchment Database will contain a selection of stored data that can be related to points or
reaches within the Catchment area. This will primarily be observed data or the results of
model runs and originate from one of the following:
·
·
·
Observed data and results from existing model runs. HR Wallingford, the system
builders, have amassed this data from a wide variety of sources.
The SMURF software will store selected results from the Scenario Testing as part of the
project and future use.
Imported data from other sources via text files.
See Appendix A for an example specification of catchment data.
GIS Data
Appendix B lists the GIS layers that will be made available.
4.1.2 Scenario Testing
A key facility of the SMURF software allows the user to ask some of the ‘what-if’ questions
that are normally only available to the experienced modeller.
4.1.2.1 What-if Questions
There will be a fixed repertoire of questions within the system. These are designed to provide
useful answers without making excessive demands on the user for complex data.
Within this repertoire, there will be 5 types of support:
73
·
Simple – the necessary rule-based calculations will be included in the SMURF
application and the results displayed immediately and stored as part of the scenario
results.
·
Automated - the software will automatically make the necessary adjustments to the
model data, run the model and make the results available via the Data Manager facilities.
In some cases, the user may choose either an InfoWorks (deterministic) model or a SIMCAT
(stochastic) model. See Section 4.2 for more information about the available models.
·
Manual – the answer requires a change to the model network that the SMURF software
is unable to perform automatically. The software will therefore advise that the assistance
of an experienced modeller is required who then, externally, has access to the full
facilities of the existing modelling software.
Following the external model run, the SMURF user may
-
import the results via Data Manager and associate them with the specified Scenario.
They will then be available for display via Data Manager facilities.
Introduce the modified model as a model version to be used as the basis of further
Scenarios.
·
GIS Display – the information is fixed and will be available in the GIS layers supplied as
SMURF Data. The software will advise and guide the user to use the Data Manager
facilities to display selected correct layers.
·
Data Manager – the user may both import the data and view it via the Data Manager.
The table below shows an initial selection of ‘what-if’ questions, supported by SMURF, and
identifies the type of support provided. This selection was compiled from discussions with all
partners. For more detail, see Appendix D.
Table 3.5
What-if Questions
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Question
Effluent discharge change
Habitat characteristics
Fish population
Abstraction change
Add or remove river structure
Add or remove wetland
Add new discharge point
Add development
Water level variation
Groundwater level impact
SUDS Locations
Best development locations
Development constraints
Climate change
15
16
Pollution event
Morphology change
74
Type
Automated (InfoWorks or SIMCAT)
Simple
Data Manager
Manual
Manual
Manual
GIS Display
GIS Display
GIS Display
GIS Display
GIS Display
Modified event data for any Automated
model run
Automated (InfoWorks only)
Manual
For each Automated question, the user will identify a point or reach within the model network
and a change to the event data to be applied.
Appendix D includes a flowchart of the processes involved in handling both simple and
automated questions.
4.1.2.2 Scenario
A scenario allows the SMURF user to pose a number of ‘what-if’ questions and initiate a
model run. The model run will evaluate the outcome of all modifications.
A selection of the results of a model run will be stored in the Catchment database for viewing
by the Data Manager facilities. These results will include audit information about the scenario,
model and model run.
There will be some constraints on the mix of questions allowed in a scenario in order to ensure
consistency.
·
All the questions for a single scenario must relate to a single model network and set of
Event Data (see Section 4.2).
·
There may be any number of Automated questions provided that no more than one
question affects the data for any one node or reach.
·
A scenario that contains Automated questions may also include a single Climate Change
question.
·
A single scenario cannot include both Manual and Automated questions.
·
GIS Display questions may be included but will have no effect on the model run results.
The user may save a scenario for amendment and/or re-use.
The results will be presented in a Form which produces a continuous audit trail.
Facilities available for handling scenarios will comprise the following:
·
Create a new scenario.
·
Add a question to a scenario.
·
Add or modify the Climate Change data for a scenario.
·
Save a scenario.
·
Edit a scenario – this allows the user to modify the scenario data including adding and
removing questions and modifying the change data for a question.
·
Run a scenario containing Automated questions. The user will be asked to choose
- the event data from the variants available (e.g. Dry, Wet, Normal, Flood).
- the Model Version from those available (the base model plus the versions introduced
after Manual model changes have been made.
75
The user will also be asked to supply a text description describing the Run and its purpose.
This will help the user of the Data Manager facilities.
Appendix D contains an example flow sheet for evaluating a scenario.
4.2
SMURF MODELS
4.2.1 Delivered Models
The modelling packages to be used by the SMURF project are
·
·
·
SIMCAT
InfoWorks RS (River Systems)
InfoWorks CS (Collection Systems, i.e. drainage)
SIMCAT may be characterised as ‘stochastic modelling’ since both event data and results are
described in statistical terms, namely mean, distribution, standard deviation, 90 %ile etc.
The InfoWorks products may be characterised as ‘deterministic modelling’ since both event
data and results are specific values, often taking the form of time-series.
The InfoWorks packages will be used within the SMURF project to produce two levels of
model.
·
A hydrodynamic model will be developed using both InfoWorks RS and InfoWorks CS.
The primary model will use InfoWorks RS but InfoWorks CS will be used to provide
inflow data for the RS model.
This is a background model and will not be used by the SMURF software or SMURF user
but will be used to generate the routing model.
·
A routing model will be produced as a subset of the hydrodynamic model and made
available to the SMURF software for the purpose of running scenarios more efficiently.
Similarly, a simplified subset of the main InfoWorks CS model will be provided for scenario
testing of the drainage network.
There are two distinct features of the models:
·
The Model Network – represents the geometry of the catchment area including the nodes,
river cross sections and features etc.
·
The Event Data – the data to be used for a model run. This covers rainfall, inflows, water
quality etc.
It is envisaged that the following will be provided:
1. One InfoWorks RS Model Network plus some sets of Event Data. Four such sets are
planned, covering
· Dry year
· Wet year
· Normal year
· Flood period
76
The first three will probably cover a whole year with daily values. The last will cover a
shorter period with smaller intervals between values.
2. One SIMCAT Model Network plus some sets of Event Data as for the InfoWorks RS
model.
These two Model Networks will ideally be representations of the same Base Model Network.
Although they are encoded differently, they should be regarded as equivalent. It may be
required that each river feature and river reach end-point in the SIMCAT model should have
an equivalent node in the InfoWorks RS Model Network. See Section 4.2.2 for more
information.
However, the SMURF user may add further versions of the Base Model Network. These will
result from assembling scenarios that include Manual ‘what-if’ questions (see Section 4.1.2).
In such a case, the SMURF Modellers will be guided to produce updated versions.
Once a new Model Version has been added, the SMURF user may choose to use that version
as the basis for future scenario runs.
4.2.2 Integrated models
A key feature of the SMURF project is the provision of integration facilities for the different
modelling software packages used for the catchment area. The integration facilities cover two
areas.
4.2.2.1 InfoWorks RS and InfoWorks CS
The primary InfoWorks model will be the RS (River) model. There will be some integration
and interaction between the drainage / wastewater (CS) and RS models.
The integration is described in more detail in Section 4.7.1.
4.2.2.2 InfoWorks RS and SIMCAT
Both SIMCAT and InfoWorks RS may be used for Scenario Testing and results from the two
packages may be displayed via the Data Manager. Both packages have their own means of
identifying nodes, reaches etc., so it is therefore important to have coordination between the
nodes in each model to ensure that event data or results for the same point or reach are
correctly associated. It is also necessary for the SMURF software to have the geographic
coordinates of the river features and reaches of the SIMCAT model, since these are not
included in the model itself. The InfoWorks model does include the geographic coordinates.
4.2.3 SMURF Model database
The SMURF software will incorporate basic information of the models to be used for Scenario
Testing in order to generate the correct data for the model runs.
Overall Information
For each Model version added to the SMURF system, the following information will be stored
·
·
·
·
Model type (SIMCAT, RS)
Version Name
Version Description
Date/time added
77
·
·
User identity (of user who added the version)
Model Source (either InfoWorks Full Path or SIMCAT Data file name)
InfoWorks RS
The SMURF software needs the following information extracted from the model used for each
model version.
In principle, it might be preferable for the SMURF software to depend on the InfoWorks
database to store this information. However, in order to provide easy access, the information
will be extracted from exported CSV files and stored in the SMURF application’s own
database.
Nodes/Links
For each node or link of the types handled by the SMURF application
·
·
·
·
Node Id,
Type of Node
Description
Geographic coordinates (X, Y).
The set of nodes and links should be identical across each version of the InfoWorks RS model.
Also, a node of the same Id should have the same values in each version.
Event Data
The SMURF database will store event data that may be modified by applying ‘what-if’
questions.
SIMCAT
A SIMCAT Model is contained in a simple text file. This contains the basic network
information and event data in the form of statistical summaries of flow and quality. The file is
divided into sections and there are cross-references between sections using a simple numeric
id to identify a particular item. It is proposed that the whole of the SIMCAT file will be
transformed into database tables whereby the cross-references may be represented by relations
between the tables. When a scenario requires the SIMCAT model to be run, the SIMCAT file
will be regenerated including any changes arising from the ‘what-if’ questions. The SIMCAT
equivalents of nodes and links are river features and river reaches. Unlike InfoWorks, the
SIMCAT model has no geographical coordinates referencing although this is required by the
SMURF software.
4.3
OUTLINE DESIGN
This section describes some of the key design issues that have already been considered.
4.3.1 Single-user v Multi-user
A single-user system requires each user to have their own copy of the software and the data.
However, a user may be allowed to access another user’s data e.g. via a shared folder on a file
server. A multi-user system allows users to share some or all of the application and data.
In determining the appropriate option for the SMURF application, the following factors were
considered:
78
·
SMURF users represent at least three organisations. Although they have committed to
share data as part of the SMURF project, privacy requirements mean that any sharing
mechanism should not jeopardise other data held within an organisation.
·
SMURF users within the same organisation may well want to share the benefits of their
work.
·
There is little benefit from sharing application code between a small number of SMURF
users. The necessary client/server design is beyond the scope of the demonstration
SMURF project.
A possible Multi-user system is shown in Figure 3.5. This suffers from the following
disadvantages and has therefore not been adopted.
·
The preferred GIS software, ArcView, does not support shared GIS data. Each user must
have their own personal geodatabase. More expensive options from the ArcGIS range do
permit a shared geodatabase but the cost would deter some SMURF users.
·
It is feasible to share the SMURF system data (catchment data, model results etc) using
the preferred database software, but trouble-free operation cannot be guaranteed.
SMURF User
SMURF User
x
GIS
SMURF
InfoWorks
Models
Import /
Export
Data
RS database
CS database
File Server
Figure 3.5
Possible Multi-user System - not adopted
The SMURF software will provide two modes of single-user operation – the choice between
the two modes will be offered when the software is installed on a user’s PC. The first mode is
shown in Figure 3.6. In this case, the user retains copies of all data but the SMURF application
provides Import/Export facilities to interchange data with other users. Within an organisation,
data could be exchanged via File Server as shown. Between organisations, the data may be
sent via E-mail or File Transfer protocol, subject to the policy of the organisations concerned.
79
InfoWorks
Models
RS database
CS database
GIS
SMURF
InfoWorks
Models
RS database
CS database
SMURF User
GIS
SMURF
SMURF User
OK
Import /
Export
Data
File Server
Figure 3.6
Single-user System
An alternative single-user mode takes advantage of the InfoWorks capability to share model
databases between users. Strict version control and associated auditing facilities allow each
user to check out a model version for updating without fear of interference from another user.
When the update is checked in, the other users then have access to the new model version.
This mode will be available as an option within an organisation provided users have access to
a shared file server.
GIS
SMURF
GIS
SMURF User
SMURF
SMURF User
OK
InfoWorks
Models
Import /
Export
Data
RS database
CS database
File Server
Figure 3.7
Shared InfoWorks Model Database
4.3.2 GIS Software
It is a prime requirement of the system that information is available in map form wherever
possible and catchment features and data can be identified or accessed by a click on a map.
Software from the leading supplier ESRI will be used to provide this functionality. It offers
the benefit that the ESRI Shape file format is published and is supported by other GIS
suppliers. For example, it is possible for a MapInfo user to import layers to, and export them
from, the SMURF system.
80
There are 2 choices on functionality:
1. Provide SMURF functionality as an extension to ArcMap, one of the applications included
in the ArcGIS Desktop products. This offers the benefit of ensuring that the user has
access to a wide range of GIS features provided by a leading product.
It comes at the cost of requiring the SMURF user to have a licensed copy of ArcView 8.3
(or one of the higher specification products - ArcEditor 8.3 or ArcInfo 8.3).
2. Produce the SMURF functionality as a free-standing application but using ESRI’s
MapObjects to provide mapping functionality. This offers the benefit that the software is
available for users without ArcView 8.3, although a small licence fee will be required for
the use of MapObjects. However, the GIS facilities will be limited to those provided by
the SMURF application.
A preferred solution is where the SMURF functionality is incorporated as an extension to
ArcMap. The benefits of the wide range of GIS features should outweigh the additional costs.
Figure 3.8 shows the software structure that will be used. This represents the following:
·
·
·
The SMURF extensions will exploit the ArcObjects component to extend the ArcMap
application and provide SMURF functionality. In turn, they will use ArcObjects to invoke
GIS functions.
The SMURF extensions will control InfoWorks and SIMCAT to perform model runs
for scenarios incorporating automated ‘what-if’ questions.
ArcMap, SMURF extensions and InfoWorks will use the JET Database engine to handle
their data storage needs.
ArcMap
ArcObjects
SMURF Extensions
InfoWorks
SIMCAT
JET Database Engine
Figure 3.8
Software Components
4.3.3 Data Storage
This section considers the data sets required by the SMURF system and the means by which
they are accessed.
81
·
GIS data
The ArcGIS product that includes ArcMap manages the GIS data. If this is the entry-level
ArcView product, then the data is stored in a JET database that is solely for an individual user.
However, shape files can be exchanged with other users by means of import/export facilities.
·
InfoWorks Models
The models used by InfoWorks are stored in a model database; one model database for
InfoWorks RS and another for InfoWorks CS. The model database may be shared between
SMURF users and it will be possible for two or more users to initiate model runs via
Automated Scenario Testing since they are not changing the model network. A SMURF
modeller may also share the same database. InfoWorks version control facilities ensure that
the modeller must check out an individual model before making any changes. This ensures
that two modellers cannot update the same model at the same time. The model database
sharing is only possible when the users have access to a common file server. It will therefore
only apply to users within the same organisation. InfoWorks products use a JET database to
store the models but this will not be used directly by the SMURF application. However, the
SMURF application will use the COM interfaces provided by InfoWorks to invoke
import/export functions.
·
SIMCAT Models
The SIMCAT software requires the model to be supplied as a single text file. An initial set of
model files will be supplied with the SMURF software and these will be used as the basis for
model runs initiated by the SMURF application. Whenever a scenario of automated questions
is run using SIMCAT, the SMURF application will generate a new model file from one of the
base files but using the modified event data required by the ‘what-if’ questions. This
functionality may be achieved by storing a representation of each base SIMCAT model within
the SMURF data (see below).
·
SMURF Data
This is the data used directly by the SMURF application and consists of the following:
-
Catchment data including results from scenario model runs
Scenario data including the user-supplied event data changes
Model reference data
The SMURF software needs some knowledge of the InfoWorks and SIMCAT models to be
used for Scenario Testing in order to generate the correct data for the model runs. The
SMURF data will be stored in a JET database. The JET database does provide some support
for shared use but this will not be supported by the SMURF application. Each SMURF user
will have their own copy of the database. Data may be exchanged with other SMURF users by
means of import/export facilities.
82
4.3.4 SMURF Data
4.3.4.1 Catchment Data
Catchment data can take the form of:
Statistical Summary – resulting from SIMCAT or other stochastic model runs or a summary
of selected observed data.
Time Series – a table of observed or calculated values over a time period.
Fixed Image – photo, for example.
Attributes – e.g. Description, type, location.
All data will have associated attribute values that are designed to allow identification and
auditing of the data. A combination of the values marked with a * provide a unique identifier
for the data item.
*
Data Identity
Description
*
Coordinates of point or reach
*
Date/Time – a single time or a time period for which the data is relevant
Owner – data owner or initiator of model run
Source – originator of the data
*
Status – e.g. Draft, Estimated, Published, Standards
*
Model Version used
Copyright
Contributor – who submitted data to the Catchment database
Contribution Date/Time – Time Stamp
Contributor Comments
Scenario Owner, Id, Version
*
Model Run Date/Time
4.3.4.2 Scenario Data
For each scenario the following information will be required:
Id
Description
Owner
Version
Date/time created
Date/time amended
Run type – automated, manual, none
Model Version used
Model Event Data (dry, wet, normal, flood)
Start time
Duration
For each question the following information will be required:
Question Id
Scenario Id
Scenario Version
Question Sequence No (within scenario)
Question No (see Table 4.1)
83
One question may affect more than one node. The following data is required for each
Question/Node combination:
Question Id
Node Id (or Coordinates)
Event Data type
Change type (Absolute, Time-series, Add Factor, Multiply factor)
Change data
4.3.4.3 Model Reference Data
SMURF Model database
The SMURF software needs some information of the models to be used for Scenario Testing
in order to generate the correct data for the model runs. However, it is important that
duplication of data is kept to a minimum.
Overall Information
For each Model Version introduced to SMURF information required is:
Model type (SIMCAT, RS)
Version Name
Version Description
Added to SMURF (date/time, user)
Model Source (either InfoWorks Full Path or SIMCAT Data file name)
InfoWorks RS
The SMURF software needs the following information extracted from the model used for each
model version.
For each node or link, relevant to SMURF:
Node Id,
Type of Node
Description
Geographic coordinates (X, Y).
In principle, it might be preferable for the SMURF software to depend on the InfoWorks
database to store this information. However, in order to provide easy access, the information
will be extracted from exported CSV files and stored in SMURF’s own database.
In practice, the set of nodes and links should be almost identical across each version of the
InfoWorks RS model. Also, a node of the same Id should have the same values in each
version.
Event Data
The SMURF database will hold copies of the event data that may be modified by applying
‘what-if’ questions.
SIMCAT
A SIMCAT Model is contained in a simple text file. This contains the basic network
information and event data in the form of statistical summaries of flow and quality. The file is
divided into sections and there are cross-references between sections using a simple numeric
id to identify a particular item.
84
It is proposed that the whole of the SIMCAT file will be transformed into database tables
whereby the cross-references may be represented by relations between the tables. When a
scenario requires the SIMCAT model to be run, the SIMCAT file will be regenerated
including any changes arising from the ‘what-if’ questions.
4.4
INNOVATIVE ASPECTS
The SMURF system development aims to consider and use innovative approaches. The
working partnership between the Agency, Severn Trent Water and Birmingham City Council
is, in itself, innovative since this level of sharing information has not been achieved before.
The implementation of a framework for the sharing of GIS layers and data between the
partners is a step forward in integrated catchment management in the UK and in achieving the
objectives of the Water Framework Directive because it will make all relevant catchment and
land use planning information available in the same location.
The following sections outline some other innovative aspects that the SMURF system will
deliver. These are the integration of river and drainage modelling systems (InfoWorks RS and
CS), the representation of groundwater levels and distribution, the representation of pluvial
flow paths, the use of sustainability indicators, the use of rule-based modelling and the
consideration of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS).
4.4.1 Integration of InfoWorks RS and CS
InfoWorks RS (River System) and CS (Collection System drainage and wastewater) are
leading software systems in their respective fields. In particular, CS is used extensively by the
water industry in the management and operation of mains networks. The UPM study
undertaken for the Tame catchment clearly demonstrated the need for an integrated catchment
approach, taking the outputs of one modelling system as the inputs to another. There are
several ways in which this integrated approach can be achieved.
Numerous catchment modelling tools exist, covering river quality, flood defences and water
resources. The majority do not include a deterministic model for urban drainage systems
necessary for the urban catchment. Those that have this functionality (e.g. SIMPOL3), lack an
accurate hydrodynamic river model to predict the effect of catchment modifications. As this
project is aimed at river quality and ecology improvement, an accurate river model is required,
which is capable of carrying out a range of ‘what-if’ scenarios, including river modification.
There is therefore a need for an interactive link between detailed, deterministic models of the
river and urban drainage systems so that the interaction between the river and drainage
network may be determined.
It is currently extremely computationally complex to fully link the drainage and river system
models, plus it is beyond the project timescale to provide a fully implicit link between
InfoWorks RS and CS. There are also ongoing research projects, such as Harmon IT which are
producing European standards for this full linkage. The results of this other European research
will not be available during the SMURF system building timescale.
An intermediate solution has been proposed, where information will be passed from one
model to the other, but without the automatic implicit two-way link. This will involve
importing the results of a CS simulation (e.g. flow and water quality parameters BOD, COD,
TKN, NH4, TPH) as input events for an RS simulation. Water level results from an RS
simulation will be imported as boundary conditions for a CS simulation. An example of the
operation of this system would be that the river model will thus be run first by the SMURF
modeller. The water level result from this run will then be used for future runs of the CS
85
model (by a SMURF user or modeller). This will allow a one-way feedback, giving
sufficiently accurate downstream boundary condition for the drainage system. From a river
point of view, it will allow for a full representation of the inflow from the drainage system
(STW outfall, CSO, surface water outfall).
4.4.2 Groundwater
The Tame catchment can be categorised into 3 main zones, based on the geology (namely the
Triassic sandstone through Birmingham, the confined sandstone to the east, beneath the
mudstone, and the carboniferous sequences to the west in the Black Country). Rising
groundwater level is known to cause flooding problems in some areas of Birmingham.
Borehole monitoring stations have identified that groundwater is within 3m of the surface in
the lower Rea and Middle Tame valley (CIRIA, 1993). Groundwater quality is also an issue
because groundwater contributes 60% of the flow to the river during low flow conditions.
Recent research at the University of Birmingham has shown that there are several local ‘hot
spots’, where major groundwater plumes are discharging to the river, but the effect is fairly
localised because of subsequent dilution downstream. However, the effect on the ecology
could be significant. Research has produced estimates of the amount of inflows and
concentrations into the river over the sandstone outcrop, including the main flux of pollutants.
As a result of concerns over rising groundwater a CIRIA commissioned report (1993) on
rising groundwater levels in Birmingham was produced. This study utilised groundwater
modelling using the software MODFLOW to investigate the impact of scenarios on the
predicted groundwater levels in 2020.
A base scenario assumed that the 1990 abstraction rates continued, giving a total abstraction
rate of 19.2 Ml/d. The worst case scenario assumed that a number of abstractions ended in
1995 and those that remained continued at the 1990 rates, so that total abstraction fell to 10
Ml/d. The best case scenario assumed a number of new abstractions increased the total amount
abstracted to 27 Ml/d.
Scenarios were run to assess the impact of control measures on the base case scenario. Four of
these options involved a new 4 Ml/d dewatering well at different locations, pumping into the
river or canal. A final scenario assumed all four new dewatering wells were operational. The
results were displayed as contour maps of groundwater level and depth below surface.
The report concluded that shallow groundwater has developed in the Tame valley although it
is not expected to rise further. In the city centre levels have continued to rise and may increase
10m by 2020, and low lying areas in Aston, Smethwick, Digbeth, Edgbaston and the Bourn
Brook will be affected.
Since the CIRIA report, the University of Birmingham updated the Birmingham Regional
Groundwater Model in the late 1990s on behalf of Severn Trent to predict changes in water
table should additional water be pumped for potable supply. The Environment Agency has run
the Birmingham Regional Groundwater Model including scenarios based on recent climate
change scenarios.
GIS data are available on the locations of monitoring boreholes for groundwater chemistry.
Although groundwater quality monitoring by the Environment Agency has been somewhat
sporadic over the years, an improved recording frequency is now in place. The University of
Birmingham has undertaken a series of detailed monitoring rounds from 1981 up to the late
1990s, although this was for private organisations and the information is therefore
86
confidential. The main pollutants found include nitrate, viruses, solvents, metals and chloride
(many of which are likely to be sewage-related).
It is intended that the SMURF system will include the historical groundwater level data for the
monitoring boreholes and include GIS layers of the water level contours. The results of the
groundwater modelling, including the impact of climate change scenarios, are also to be
included as contour surface layers within the GIS. GIS surface analysis will then be used on
this data to identify areas of shallow groundwater (water within 5m of the surface), and the
predicted changes in these areas. This will be done off line from the system that has ArcView
3d Analyst or Spatial Analyst available.
4.4.3 Flow Path Tool
Within the InfoWorks CS modelling software there is the ability to use the pipe network to
trace flow paths through the drainage system. A user can click on a particular node and
identify either the downstream flow route, or the upstream contributing catchment. Such
facilities can be used to trace the movement of pollutants through the system, or to identify
which parts of the network impact on particular sections of the river. Knowledge of what
happens on the surface before water enters the drainage system is currently unknown.
Within the Tame catchment there are four main drainage systems:
·
·
·
·
Foul
Surface water
Combined
Highways.
The SMURF methodology will look at the flow paths to and from these drainage systems.
This will help to identify where water will go in the event of pluvial or fluvial flooding, or
sewer flooding. In addition, the tool will be useful for looking at the dispersion of diffuse
pollution. So, for example, if there was a spillage of pollutants from a lorry on the highway,
the tool would show where the pollutant would go and where it would enter the drainage
system or water course.
The flow path tool will be developed for a pilot area, to demonstrate the methodology for
implementing the tool across the whole catchment. The development must take into account
the interaction of the drainage system with the water course and runoff on the surface of the
ground.
4.4.4 Sustainability Indicators Data
The method for assessing the physical habitat of the urban river is based on the Urban River
Survey (URS) devised by Dr. Davenport (for details refer to Part 1 of this report). The river
has been surveyed over stretches of 500m and scored for various indices. The survey data is
summarised to produce Primary Environmental Indicators, which are then grouped by
secondary environmental indicators; channel and bank ‘Materials’, ‘Physical Habitat’, and
‘Vegetation’. The classifications from the three groups are combined to give the sustainability
indicator for the reach. There are also indicators at the sector scale, such as the flow regime
and water quality, which are important for classifying the stretch of river.
There are over 50 URS sites in the Tame catchment and these will be used in the SMURF
system to show the impact of different management options (scenarios) on improving the river
reach stretch classification. This enables the impact of altering the type of channel
87
engineering/form, vegetation, flow and water quality on the sustainability indicator to be
evaluated.
The close co-ordination of the work packages on sustainability indicators and on the GISbased catchment planning tool are essential for the delivery of this objective. It requires the
sustainability indicators data to be fully integrated into the system and for the system to use
this information in the running of ‘what-if’ scenarios. The basis of the methodology for
inclusion in scenarios is outlined in section 4.4.5 on rule-based modelling.
4.4.5 Rule-based modelling
As outlined in section 4.1.2, the running of ‘what-if’ scenarios will either require the automatic
or manual run of a model, or display of relevant GIS layers or the calculation of results by
rule-based modelling. The questions that require rule-based modelling are associated with
determining habitat characteristics, ecology, biology and fisheries. The parameters of these
factors are difficult to estimate precisely and the dynamics of habitat and the physics of
populations are difficult to model.
Rule-based modelling does not aim to simulate the physics of the habitat or populations, but
instead it applies rules to estimate what the habitat and ecology would be like as a function of
other parameters, such as flow, width of channel, vegetation type etc. Logical rules can be set
up to specify ‘IF/AND/THEN’ conditions that combine the predictors with the resulting
conditions.
The basis for the rules that will be used in this modelling will be determined from previous
research carried out by experts in the relevant fields. The developed methodology will take
the results of several research programmes to use with the SMURF rule-based modelling.
4.4.6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)
SUDS use techniques to delay surface runoff into a watercourse and encourage natural
infiltration into the ground. There are a variety of different systems that use different
approaches to facilitate the detention and filtering of water before it reaches the river network
or groundwater. The National SUDS Working Group (2003) have identified the following
systems:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Pervious surfaces to allow inflow of rainwater to the underlying construction or soil.
Filter drains are trenches filled with permeable material to store and conduct water.
Filter strips are vegetated areas of gently sloping ground.
Swales are shallow, vegetated channels that conduct and retain rainwater and permit
infiltration.
Basins, ponds and wetlands are used for surface water storage.
Soakaways are sub-surface structures to promote the infiltration of surface water to
ground.
Infiltration trenches are designed to promote the passage of surface water to the ground.
Pipes and accessories are a series of conduits laid below ground to convey surface water to
a suitable location for treatment or disposal.
Rainwater re-use collects rain from roofs and hard-standings to be used for non-potable
purposes.
Green roofs have plants growing on the surface that promote retention and treatment of
rainwater and promote evapotranspiration.
88
The incorporation of SUDS is a condition on all new developments as part of the Planning
System so the implementation and management of SUDS is high on the agenda for both land
use planning and sustainable water management. The SMURF project will aim to work with
the three main partner organisations to develop a methodology for the classification of land
suitability for SUDS, based on soil type, geology and other relevant factors. It is believed that
the Agency has already done work on this approach, so any previous research will be taken
into consideration. The output of the methods for classifying land will either be in the form of
GIS layers indicating suitability, or in the form of rules that can be used in ‘what-if’ scenarios
with rule-based modelling.
4.5
SUMMARY
The SMURF Application provides users with a GIS application with the ability to gain easy
access to a wide range of data and statistics gained from observations and model runs of the
Tame Catchment Area.
The SMURF project offers users the benefits of a number of models using three different
modelling packages – SIMCAT (for stochastic modelling), InfoWorks RS (deterministic
modelling for River Systems) and InfoWorks CS (deterministic modelling for Collection
Systems). Model integration facilities allow data to be interchanged between the packages.
The scenario facilities bring the power of these modelling packages to the desktop of the
SMURF user who has no direct experience of water modelling. The user may create scenarios
consisting of a number of ‘what-if’ questions relating to points in the area. The SMURF
software generates the correct model runs and provides the results for display via the GIS
interface.
The SMURF Application will be developed as an extension to the ArcView GIS package
thereby overlaying the SMURF facilities on a strong GIS software package. It will be
provided as a single-user system using a JET database to store the SMURF-related data. Data
import and export facilities allow data to be exchanged with other users. In addition, SMURF
users within the same organisation may share their InfoWorks model database and thereby
access each other’s model changes.
89
5.
Audit
5.1
QUALITY ASSURANCE ON SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
Wallingford Software have been contracted to develop the SMURF software and will follow
their usual software development procedures. The Software Development Manager is
responsible for quality assurance.
The development procedure requires the roles of the team working on the development to be
clearly defined. Wallingford Software have assigned a lead software developer to the SMURF
project, who is supported from the Chief Software Developer, the Manager of Software
Projects, the Director with responsibility for SMURF development and other software
developers as appropriate. The Wallingford Software team, and in particular, the lead
software developer, work closely with the application specialists in the HR Wallingford team.
The clear definition of roles and responsibilities within Wallingford Software and HR
Wallingford ensures that communication is effective and that quality assurance on system
development is met.
Following the development of the outline design and its documentation in this Methodology
Report, a software development timetable will be produced showing the main development
tasks, milestones and delivery dates. The lead software developer will produce weekly
progress reports detailing progress against plan and highlighting any deviation. This will be
circulated within the supporting Wallingford Software team so that they are aware of the work
schedule and any issues arising. Any issues or significant deviations from plan are resolved
by the Wallingford Software representatives mentioned above, and the HR Wallingford
Project Manager.
Source code developed for this project is documented with in-line comments and a summary
technical document. The contents of this document should be of sufficient detail to allow a
skilled software developer to understand the purpose and structure of the software.
5.2
QUALITY ASSURANCE ON SYSTEM USE
5.2.1 Version control
The InfoWorks Modelling System provides a version control mechanism that automatically
maintains a history of developments of the sewer and river networks used by the models in the
model database. For each network version, information is stored including the username of
the person that created the new version, the date and some descriptive text.
The InfoWorks database should be backed-up regularly for safety.
InfoWorks can also retain a record of the boundary condition (input data) used to create
results. This would not normally be recorded for every SMURF-driven simulation.
SIMCAT keeps its input information in an ASCII file and does not provide version control
facilities. It is recommended that each version of the model is stored in a separate file with
version information recorded directly in the file as comments. A copy of the file should be
archived for safe-keeping.
90
The SMURF software stores the model reference for the base InfoWorks models, and a
reference to the file name and location of the ASCII file(s) for the base SIMCAT model(s).
The SMURF scenario manager records the username of anyone that creates a new scenario,
and the date.
The SMURF data manager records the date and the username of anyone that imports new
measurement data or other catchment data for which import facilities are provided.
5.2.2 Audit trail
The main point of the audit trail is to be able to review the history of results information that
may be used for decision making, in order to understand the level of confidence that can be
had in those results. The decision support is largely facilitated through the running of ‘whatif’ scenarios. As part of the audit trail, the date and username of the person that created any
particular scenario can always be reviewed. The parameters recorded for that scenario can
also be reviewed.
Audit of data and results within the system is also important. Some results are measurements
that are part of catchment data, in which case the date of import into the SMURF system and
the username of the person that carried out the import can always be reviewed. Other results
are model results that belong to particular scenarios. The name of the appropriate SIMCAT
model file can be reviewed but there is no record of the changes made to the file. The model
reference for InfoWorks can be reviewed and by entering the InfoWorks system, the network
data used for the model can be reviewed.
5.3
SUCCESS CRITERIA
An essential part of the audit process is to check that the system fulfils the success criteria of
the project at least to a satisfactory standard. For the system to be successful, it must deliver
the following requirements:
·
The software must be reliable. It should be able to cope with running models without
becoming unstable.
·
The SMURF system should be reasonably easy to use. The ease of use will be tailored to
the level of the user. The three partners will be using full versions of the software, with
the complete functionality. This high level software will have the capacity to carry out a
wide range of procedures and so it may take some time and effort for the user to
familiarise themselves with the system. The other stakeholders and citizens may use a
limited version of the software, which provides functionality at a lower level and so there
is less to learn about the software. However, these users may be less familiar with GIS
than the three partners and so there may still be a period of familiarisation. Whatever the
level, the system should be user-friendly.
·
The SMURF system should improve the way that existing jobs are done. This relates to
both the quality of results and the speed of analysis. It should provide useful and relevant
support for different users within each organisation.
·
The SMURF system should make a new contribution to the procedures that the partner
organisations currently employ. A key part of this is to successfully make water
information part of the planning process.
91
·
The SMURF system should provide a forum for the interaction of the Environment
Agency, Severn Trent Water and Birmingham City Council. The project must deliver
improved communication between the three partners so that all relevant information for
integrated catchment management and land use planning is brought together.
Following the development of the SMURF system and its use in the demonstration project, the
success of the tool will be appraised and the added value of applying the system as a practical
planning tool in heavily modified water bodies will be assessed.
5.4
SUMMARY
The audit of the SMURF system is important for all stages of the project, from the
development of the system, to the use of the system and the appraisal of the success of the
system. Quality assurance on the system development will be ensured by working to a clear
framework of roles and responsibilities of work schedule, and of communication and
discussion of progress. Audit of the system use will be built into the software so that
information on model versions and scenario runs will be recorded and stored. Audit of the
system at the end of the SMURF project will assess the success of the system.
92
6.
Future Development
In this section future developments of the SMURF system over the next ten years is envisaged.
Some of these developments will be enforced by outside influences, such as changes to the
underlying computer environment. Other changes will be designed to increase functionality of
the system.
6.1
SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
While a lot of software source code can be maintained and re-used over time periods of ten or
more years, it is usual for software systems to undergo major developments in the space of ten
years, and unlikely for systems to remain running untouched for over ten years.
SMURF is a demonstration project, aiming to provide new functionality in support of
legislation and procedures (the Water Framework Directive). It is inconceivable that there
will be no requirements to change functionality over the next ten years. In fact, we should
expect changes to start to be required before the project has finished.
Before the end of the project, a decision will need to be made on an appropriate way of
supporting or developing further this software. The software is written to a good commercial
standard, so it is to be expected that it forms a good basis for continued maintenance,
development and use. Even if functionality did not need to change, it is likely that the source
code would need to be upgraded to allow for any changes in the underlying product software
and operating system (as detailed below).
The following issues are important in relation to system maintenance:
·
·
·
The scale of the underlying changes means that it is impossible to predict over a period as
long as ten years.
It is likely that there will be a desire to increase functionality in the short term (see section
6.2).
There is potential for major roll out to multiple users of the tool for the Upper Tame
catchment, and also for the rest of the UK and the EU (see section 6.3).
Given these issues, it is recommended that the situation is reviewed on an annual basis to
agree on an economical level of support and maintenance for the following year.
6.2
FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The SMURF system comprises a GIS user interface, a data manager, a scenario manager, and
underlying models of the Tame catchment run by modelling systems. The main functions are
there to import and view catchment data, to ask ‘what-if’ questions by setting up new
scenarios and generating new results using the models, and to output new GIS layers for
distribution to inform the planning process.
The project team has used its experience of catchment management, knowledge of the WFD
and detailed discussion with the project partners, to define a series of ‘what-if’ questions and
accompanying scenarios. Some modifications will be made during development testing, but
there is no time on the project for extensive prototyping of these ideas. After the project, when
the ‘what-if’ questions are being used by the project partners, requirements for small
93
improvements in the questions, or in the display and management of catchment data may be
identified.
It is likely that as time goes on, experience in use of the system grows, and the influence of the
WFD comes closer, other ‘what-if’ questions will be identified and other sources of catchment
data will be developed. So one would expect that while the basic structure of the SMURF
software will continue to be applicable, extra features will be identified in the future.
In addition, there will most likely be the further development of the innovative approaches that
are used in the system. The integration of InfoWorks RS and InfoWorks CS will, in the
SMURF system, be a one-way link (see section 4.7.1) so that information can be transferred
from CS to RS so that the analysis of the river hydraulics takes into account the impact of
combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Other projects and initiatives, such as the EC project
HarmonIT are looking at developing open frameworks for modelling so that in the next three
years there will be full integration of RS and CS, and with other models, which could be fed
into the SMURF system.
There is also potential for further development of the groundwater analysis in the system. The
representation of groundwater is restricted to GIS layers indicating groundwater levels
compared to the surface of the ground. The results from MODFLOW modelling of possible
future groundwater levels will also be included. Expanding the system functionality for the
representation of groundwater will of course bring added benefits to the management of the
catchment in an integrated way, however, since the movement of groundwater is so much
slower than the movement of surface water, the impact of management decisions is not
realised until ten to fifty years after their implementation. So the management of groundwater
is carried out on a longer time scale. If the system were to incorporate some more advanced
modelling of the groundwater, perhaps by integrating MODFLOW into the system
architecture, then this would allow more advanced ‘what-if’ questions to be investigated.
The further development of the pluvial and fluvial flow path tool would be required to
implement the methodology over the whole catchment from its demonstration pilot area and
the incorporation of this analysis into the ‘what-if’ scenarios. This would be of huge benefit to
the management of the catchment as it provides analysis of localised fluvial and pluvial
flooding and of diffuse pollution. There is a great need for this information as there is a lack
of knowledge about these factors at present. In addition to the roll out of the pilot area
methodology to the rest of the catchment, there will also be scope for further development of
the functionality of the flow path tool. It would be a great advantage for the tool to be able to
automatically generate the flow paths from a user selecting a location on the map with a
mouse click. The analysis could also be extended to consider the quantity of water through
each possible flow path from a single point or polygon location since the magnitude of flow is
not currently taken into account.
6.3
ROLL OUT
The comprehensive version of the SMURF software is designed with specific users within the
partner organisations in mind. In addition, extracts from the system for demonstration
purposes will be made available to a wider group of interested stakeholders via the Internet
and CD. The select people who will receive the full version of the software are actively
involved in catchment management and planning and so the tool will be targeted for the most
suitable people in order for data generated by the SMURF system to influence the planning
process. It may be that following the demonstration project, other users are found who want to
use the full version of the tool for their role in managing the Tame catchment.
94
The system methodology must be generic. So after a period of use by the immediate core
users, there may be a need to roll out the system to an increasing number of other users within
the Tame catchment and elsewhere in the UK. At this point, there may be a need to combine
the SMURF system with other demonstration systems within the catchment management
arena. It makes sense to develop these systems separately, while new functionality is being
developed to satisfy a weakly understood need. But once experience is gained with that
functionality, it may be best to combine related systems before undergoing the costs of a major
roll out.
Major roll out would imply the consideration of a whole new set of factors, including
incorporation with other corporate systems and compliance with long-term software strategies
of the project partners. The software is built on a basis that allows for widespread use on
PC/Windows based systems, in particular the use of ArcMap and InfoWorks. However, other
factors may come to light over the next few years.
6.4
PRODUCT SOFTWARE
Some of the SMURF software is commercial, licensed products; specifically InfoWorks and
ArcMap. It is anticipated that both these products will have a long sales life, with periodic
upgrades being made available. These upgrades can be purchased either as an integral part of
an annual support and maintenance contract or as a specific upgrade contract. Most
manufacturers only support the most recent versions of their software. The underlying
operating system on the PCs will also be changed from time to time, and the latest versions of
the products will be able to be used on the new versions of the operating system.
It is recommended that the partner organisations do keep these products up to date, in order to
benefit from future improvements and features, to be able to upgrade operating systems
occasionally and to be able to benefit from the support provided.
Occasionally, software products come to the end of their life, and, while they may still be able
to be used for some time, an alternative product needs to be found. There are no plans to end
InfoWorks, and ArcMap is a new product, so we do not anticipate this problem in the near
future. But it could happen at some time in the next ten years.
SIMCAT is owned by the Environment Agency and is likely to be maintained over a
reasonable period of time.
The SMURF data manager uses the JET database engine, as used by Microsoft Access. JET
has been in existence for a long time, and is likely to be around for some time to come. It does
get upgraded from time to time, although these upgrades usually have minimal impact on
software that uses JET. However, major changes are anticipated at some time in the next ten
years.
The SMURF system runs on PCs under the Microsoft Windows operating system. Both the
software developed for this project and the software products used are designed to run under
Windows. As Windows changes, the SMURF software may need to be modified. If Windows
ceases to exist, or the partner organisations change to a different operating system, then all the
software will need to be changed to suit.
95
6.5
SUMMARY
This section has outlined the issues associated with the future development of the SMURF
system. Maintenance of the system will be required to update the software and expand the
functionality. It is envisaged that the functional development will cover the ability to test
more ‘what-if’ scenarios, the incorporation of fully integrated InfoWorks RS and CS software,
the integration of dynamic groundwater modelling, and the roll out and full automation of the
flow path tool. Rolling out the SMURF system to more users within the Tame catchment, and
then adapting the methodology for other urban catchments will deliver consistent integrated
management across a wider core of water managers and planners.
96
7.
References
1.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) (1993) Rising
Groundwater levels in Birmingham and the Engineering Implications. Special publication 92,
authors Knipe, Lloyd, Lerner & Greswell.
2.
Environment Agency (November 2002) Scope of work for Tame Strategy, Phase I, Scheme
No. 1024.
3.
HR Wallingford Ltd in association with Wallingford Software Ltd (July 2003) Integrated
Catchment Management and Land Use Planning. Benchmark Report on existing ‘know-how’
within the EU. LIFE02ENV/UK/000144.
4.
National SUDS Working Group (May 2003) Framework for Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SUDS).
5.
WRc (March 2003) Development of SIMCAT Water Quality Models. River Tame. Manual
Calibration Report. WRc 13289-1.
97
98
B.
General Discussion
B.1
INTEGRATION OF METHODS
The previous three sections of this report have described in detail the methodology to be used
in delivering three of the main tasks within the SMURF project. In order to deliver the overall
project aims of integrated river basin management in urban river catchments, then clearly
these methods and tools must be applied in an integrated way.
B.1.1 Sustainable indicators
The Sustainable Indicators set will be used to classify and monitor the ecological quality of
heavily modified urban river systems to meet the requirements of the Water Framework
Directive.
In addition, some of the data and information gathered to derive the Sustainable Indicators set,
as well as the final classifications themselves, will be available as layers of information within
the GIS planning system. The ready availability of this information on, for example, river
channel engineering will help to inform and strengthen the planning process and management
decisions that might impact on the river channel.
Furthermore, as described in the methodology report, these indicators may also be used to
predict the impact of any channel modifications on the ecological status of the affected river
reach. This will permit ‘what-if’ scenarios to be performed on proposed development work
affecting the river channel and assist river basin managers and planners in getting the
maximum ecological gain from any development. The predictive element to the Sustainable
Indicators set will also allow some priorities to be derived, highlighting areas where the
potential for ecological improvement is greater and indicating the type of in-river habitat
improvements that might be induced to achieve the improvement. Equally important, the
Sustainable Indicators set can be used to highlight areas where improvements in physical
habitat will not achieve any significant improvement in ecological status because of the
influence of other constraining factors such as water quality.
B.1.2 Citizen consultation and stakeholder involvement
The participation component of the SMURF project will provide information on what local
citizens and stakeholders want from the urban river system. Some of these requirements will
form additional sustainable indicators that will compliment the ecological indicators set.
However, it is expected that participants will also discuss ecological objectives, increasing
their knowledge but also contributing to discussion of required trade-offs.
These indicators or requirements generated through the public and stakeholder discussion will
be displayed via the GIS planning system, allowing planners and river basin managers to
include these local views and opinions in the decision making process.
The indicators and views provided by the local citizens and stakeholders will help to shape
high-level long-term planning and development strategies covering large areas of the urban
river catchment as well as influencing more local, site specific schemes that impact upon the
river and its floodplain.
99
B1.3 GIS based catchment planning system
The GIS-based catchment planning system will integrate land-use, ecological status, flood risk
and water quality aspects of the urban river catchment. The system will provide land-use
planners, water managers and policy makers with a practical tool for testing the impact of
modifications and developments in the urban river catchment and identify measures to achieve
the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.
The sharing of information via a common system between the main bodies responsible for
water management and land-use planning in the urban river catchment will facilitate an
integrated approach to management of the urban river catchment.
Integrating elements of the Sustainable Indicators set and the views of local citizens and
stakeholders into the GIS planning system will provide information to the land-use planners
and water managers that is currently not available. This information will then be available to
influence the development of management strategies and land-use planning in the urban river
catchment.
The GIS planning system will also provide an important means of communicating and
disseminating such planning issues between all other stakeholders and the citizens.
B.2
EVALUATION OF METHODS
The approaches and tools described in this report will be evaluated during the project through
the delivery of two small-scale infrastructure modifications within the Tame catchment.
The location of the two demonstration sites will be selected through application of the GISbased planning system. Local people will have a direct input into the implementation of the
two demonstration projects.
The effectiveness of this input will be evaluated directly through surveys of participants,
focusing not only on outcome but also the process by which they participate.
The project will publish external reports on:
·
·
·
A Sustainable Indicators set for urban rivers
Local citizen involvement and opinions
The value of the GIS system as a planning tool.
The development and demonstration of the techniques will also be discussed and debated at
two project conferences: an interim conference scheduled for February 2004 and a final 2-day
dissemination event in April 2005.
100
Appendices
Appendix A
Specification of catchment data to be incorporated into SMURF
Name: Flows
Gauged river flows
Type:
Timeseries (plus statistics)
Availability:
There are some 13 gauging stations in
the Tame catchment, which will have
mean daily flows going back for
different time periods. In turn, the daily
flows will be derived from 15 minute
level records which are converted to flow
by a rating curve
Additional data:
There will be a host of other flow
statistics that can be extracted from the
Agency’s hydrometric archive for each
station. E.g. monthly or yearly
maximum, mean and minimum flows
(instantaneous and daily average). Also
the flow duration curve for any period
selected
·
·
Issues:
Do we extract the statistics from the
original database, or do we simply store
the base data in SMURF and provide
analysis tools to calculate the statistics?
This second approach will ensure we can
always get the statistics for the period
selected.
Requirements:
To display timeseries of flows for any selected period, to compare against rainfall, river water
quality etc.
To display flow statistics for any gauging point(s) (but for any period?)
Data volume:
If data for 30 years is required (to
produce good statistics), then 142K data
values will need to be stored. In addition,
there will be monthly and yearly
statistics
Associated data:
Flow statistics at key locations may be
generated from the SIMCAT model. In
addition, the routing model will also
produce timeseries, which may need to
be compared with the observed data
·
·
·
·
Name: Water Quality data
Ammonia (mg/l)
Nitrate (TON) (mg/l)
Ortho-Phosphate (mg/l)
BOD (mg/l)
DO (% saturation)
DO (mg/l)
Alkalinity (mg/l CaCO3)
Suspended solids
GQA grade
RQO code
Availability:
There are some 40-50 water quality
sampling sites in the Tame catchment,
which have samples taken every month
on average- though sometimes more that
one sample is taken from the same site in
a month and other times there is no
sample taken in a particular month. The
records seem to be complete for all the
above except suspended solids, which is
very sparse.
Type:
Additional data:
Issues:
There is no data base of statistics
calculated from the raw data, so SMURF
could provide an analysis tool for
calculating these. This would require a
large set of the raw data in the system.
Requirements:
To display timeseries of the parameter for any selected period, flows, biology etc.
To display statistics for any sample point(s) (but for any period?)
Display the GQA grade, as determined by DO (% saturation), BOD and Ammonia as a colour
coded river network map.
Display the set RQO code as a colour coded river network map.
Data volume:
If data for 30 years is required (to
produce good statistics), then
approximately 360 data values will need
to be stored for each parameter at each
sample site, so about 90-120K values in
total.
Associated data:
Statistics as output from SIMCAT may
be available for some sites, including
annual maximum and minimum,
percentile distributions etc.
Name: Biology
BMWP Score
Number of taxa
ASPT score
RIVPACS prediction for ASPT and No.
of taxa
GQA grade
Type:
Availability:
There are some 40-50 biological water
quality sampling sites in the Tame
catchment, which have 2 samples taken
in one year, one in spring (March to
May) and one in autumn (September to
November), then again in three years.
One third of the sites are sampled each
spring and autumn so that sampling is
carried out every year, just not on all the
samples.
Additional data:
ASPT and number of taxa are calculated
from the raw data of numbers in each
taxon. The ASPT and number of taxa are
both divided by the expected number of
taxa and the expected ASPT that are
generated using the RIVPACS model.
This gives the EQI (Ecological Quality
Index) for the stretch, which is a standard
scale and so comparison can be made
between different stretches. In addition,
the CONCLASS computer program
calculates the percentage confidence of
the grade determined by the EQI.
·
·
·
Issues:
It will probably be superfluous to store
all the raw data collected on the numbers
in each taxon. SMURF should store the
ASPT and numbers of taxa only.
SMURF must be able to extract the EQI
score from RIVPACS and the
CONCLASS results for the percentage
confidence in EQI grade. There would
be unnecessary duplication if SMURF
provided this analysis itself.
Requirements:
To display timeseries of ASPT and number of taxa for any selected period, to compare against
chemical water quality etc.
To display EQI scores at sample points so that sites can be compared with one another and high
priority sites can be identified.
Display the GQA grade as determined by the EQI score as a colour coded river network map for
river stretches.
Data volume:
Associated data:
The RIVPACS input and output, i.e. the
numbers in each taxon. This probably
doesn’t need to be in SMURF, it would
just be useful to extract the results from
analysis that RIVPACS does with these
figures.
Name: Fisheries
A variety of parameters that describe fish
population:
Species composition: relative abundances
Density of standing crop of fish: numbers
and weight
Type:
Time series and statistics
Availability:
Five yearly information for 30-40 sites.
Very limited data for the River Tame.
Additional data:
The NFPD holds the survey information
and gives some summary reporting of
this.
·
·
Issues:
The NFPD holds the fish survey
information and the data from here is
normally transferred to Excel for manual
graphing.
Requirements:
Display relative abundance in pie charts for each reach.
To display time series of fish species abundance for any selected period, to compare against
chemical water quality etc.
Data volume:
The River Tame has historical fisheries
information on a five yearly basis for
around 30-40 sites on the River Tame
and its tributaries.
Associated data:
Appendix B
Listing of all the GIS layers that are currently planned to be included in the SMURF system
BCC data
Initiative area
Regeneration area
Development control area teams
Neighbourhood forums
Statutory register
Landfill
Hazardous sites
Conservation areas
Historic parks and garden
Locally listed buildings
Scheduled ancient monument
Statutory listed buildings
Land availability
Birmingham nature conservation strategy
Tree preservation order
EA data
Active EA Licensed Landfill sites
Admin - District Council at 10,000
Admin - English Counties at 10,000
Agricultural census by catchment area
Agricultural census data 2000 - 5km grid
Base maps 10k colour region
Base maps 50k colour region
Canals at 250,000
Dangerous substances - List 1
Dangerous substances - List 2
Designations - Groundwater Vulnerability (drift) at
100,000
Designations - Groundwater Vulnerability at 100,000
Designations - National nature reserves at 10,000
Designations - natural areas of England 250,000
Designations - Nitrate Vulnerable Zones at 25,000
Designations - SSSI's at 10,000
EA - Area public face at 250,000
EA - Area Water Management at 250,000
EA - Assets
EA - Leaps at 250,000
EA - Offices at 1:100,000
EA - Regional public face at 250,000
EA - Regional Water Management at 250,000
EA - Flood Warning Areas at 10,000
EA - Offices at 1:10,000
Data Owner
Local planning Group
Local planning Group
Development Control Group
Environmental Services Group
Health and Safety Group
Shared mapping and
conservation group
Conservation Group
Conservation Group
Conservation Group
Conservation Group
Information Group
Strategic Planning Group
Design Policy Group
Data Owner
EA
ORDNANCE SURVEY
ORDNANCE SURVEY
DEFRA
DEFRA
ORDNANCE SURVEY
ORDNANCE SURVEY
ORDNANCE SURVEY
ENGLISH NATURE
ENGLISH NATURE
DEFRA
ENGLISH NATURE
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA - Land owned by EA
Freshwater fish data
GQA Biology Points
GQA Chemistry Points
Index - OS 10k Colour rasters
Index - OS 50k Colour rasters
Indicative Floodplain Mapping (most recent)
Monitoring-sites-coarse
Monitoring-sites-salmonid
River catchments at 50,000
River habitat monitoring sites
Source protection locations at 1:50,000
Source protection zones (ind) at 1:50,000
Source protection areas (merged) at 1:50,000
Topography - 50m res
Urban areas at 250,000
Water - Lakes at 250,000
EA
EA
ORDNANCE SURVEY
ORDNANCE SURVEY
EA
EA
ORDNANCE SURVEY
ORDNANCE SURVEY
ORDNANCE SURVEY
Appendix C
Details of the functionality provided by the SMURF data display
toolbars
Click on a node
Choose start & end date
Show period available and ask
to choose date
Choose type of statistics
Show list of statistics available
or that the system can calculate
(tick boxes)
Choose data (>1)
Show data available (tick boxes)
Click on statistics
Window showing
- Name of the site
- Extension of the reach (if any)
- Other information about the site
- Statistics B
Scenario 1 : Displaying statistics
button
Display the chosen
statistics
Press
(Select database)
Click on an item of the list
Window showing
Corresponding reach/node for :
- Flow (existing)
- Water quality
- Biology
- Fisheries
- Model (WQ & flow)
Click on a reach
Display
photo
Photo
Statistics
on
Display the chosen
statistics
Show period available and ask to
choose date
(tick boxes)
Choose data
Click
Window showing
- Name of the site
- Statistics B
- Data available B
- Photo (if available)
Click on a node
Scenario 2 : Displaying raw tabular data (time series)
Display data as a time
series in a table (Including
lines showing standards)
Show period available and ask
to choose date
Choose data
Data available
Press
Right click/click
on option in menu
button
(Select database)
Windows showing options :
- Add series
- Print export or other options (to be defined)
Click on add series to compare with
another set of data,
possibly for another
node
Window showing
- Flow (existing)
- Water quality
- Biology
- Fisheries
- Model (WQ & flow)
Click on a reach
Display photo
Photo
Click on a node
Click on
Window showing
- Name of the site
- Data available B
- Photo (if available)
Scenario 3 : Displaying time series as a graph
button
Right click/click
on option in menu
Display data as a time
series graph (Including
series showing standards)
Show period available and ask to
choose date
Choose data
Data available
Press
(Select database)
- Add series
- Print export or other options (to be defined)
Window showing
- Flow (existing)
- Water quality
- Biology
- Fisheries
- Model (WQ & flow)
Click on a reach
Right click/click
on option in menu
button
Choose period
Display data as a long section in a table for all the reaches
between the upstream and the downstream points
(Including lines showing standards)
(c)
Window asking to click on the downstream
point
Click on the upstream point
Window asking to click on the upstream point
(c)
Window asking the period for which the statistics are
displayed (e.g. with 2 drop down menu)
Choose statistic
Display data as a long section in a table for all
the reaches downstream of the selected point
(b)
Window asking the date for which the data are displayed
(e.g. with drop down menu)
Choose parameter
(b)
Window asking what parameters or statistic (time series)
to take into account (e.g. with tick boxes)
Choose date
Press
(Select database)
Window asking if display data from :
- upstream of a point (a)
- downstream of a point (b)
- between an upstream and a downstream point (c)
Click on the downstream point
point
(a)
Display data as a long section in a table for all
the reaches upstream of the selected point
(a)
Click on add series
- Add series
- Statistics B
- Print, export or other options (to be defined)
Click on Statistics
(tick boxes)
Display the chosen statistics for the
long section points, for the selected
parameters, at the date/period
previously chosen
Scenario 4 :Displaying raw tabular data (long section)
(a)
Right click/click
on option in menu
Press
button
(Select database)
Choose date
Choose period
Display data as a long section in a graph for all the reaches
between the upstream and the downstream points
(Including series showing standards)
(c)
point
(c)
Window asking the period for which the statistics are
displayed (e.g. with 2 drop down menu)
Choose statistic
Display data as a long section in a graph for all
the reaches downstream of the selected point
(b)
Window asking the date for which the data are displayed
(e.g. with drop down menu)
Choose parameter
Window asking what parameters or statistic (time series)
to take into account (e.g. with tick boxes)
(b)
Window asking if display data from :
- upstream of a point (a)
- downstream of a point (b)
- between an upstream and a downstream point (c)
Click on the downstream point
point
(a)
Display data as a long section in a graph for
all the reaches upstream of the selected point
- Add series
- Print, export or other options (to be defined)
Scenario 5 :Displaying long section as a graph
Scenario 6 : Colour coding
button
Colour coding all the reaches for which there is the information
available (bring forward a pre-existing layer hidden from the user)
Choose date
Window asking what date to take into account for the colour coding
(e.g. drop down menu)
Choose parameter
Window asking what parameter to take into account for the colour
coding (e.g. drop down menu)
Press
(Select database)
Display legend window
Appendix D
Flowcharts detailing the processes involved in handling both simple,
automated and manual ‘what if’ questions
Window asking
Click on continue
Display additional water needed
- Sewage flow quality (d)
- Additional sewage flow (c)
- Drainage flow quality (b)
- Additional drainage flow (a)
Calculating (fuzzy equations)
Click on existing
- Choose the outflow location at the river (if relevant) (1)
- Choose the outflow location to the surface water
drainage (if relevant) (2)
- Choose the outflow location to the sewer network (3)
- Choose the outflow location to the surface water
drainage (if relevant) (2)
Calculating the nearest
available node in the
network(s) for (1), (2) and (3)
Answer questions
Software automatically
Window asking the user to
Click on “Software calculating the outflow location”
- User giving the centre of the development
(software calculating the outflow location)
- User setting the outflow location
(fuzzy equations)
Calculating water needed
Answer questions
- foul/separated or both (% of f/s)
- number of inhabitant/households
- size of development
Window asking
Click on “User setting the outflow location”
Import or type in the hydrograph
Hydrograph type
Coefficient type
Add new or modify existing development
Yes - RS-CS or SIMCAT
Do you want water quality?
Click on “Add development”
Display list of possible scenario
Press ‘What if’ button
No - flow RS-CS (default)
Input hydrograph or coefficient derived hydrograph
Click on new
Hydrograph type
Use flow path tool to determine to
which STW the sewage is going and
where the surface water is going
in the temp scenario file. Also write
information on removed natural
runoff area from model if applicable
Add (c)+(d) information to (3)
Add (a)+(b) information to (1) & (2)
Click on continue
Import new hydrograph
Percentage change to hydrograph
Incremental change to hydrograph
Window saying/showing to which
STW the sewage is going, what is
the additional flow, as well as
where the surface water is going
and what is the additional flow
Change to coefficients
Coefficient type
Select an existing development
Other modifications
or running an event
Display window
Window asking the user to act
Done by software
Adding a new development
Automatic ‘what-if’: question 8
- Global change to all consent nodes
- Conditions : Flow statistic, Concentration statistic, WQ statistic,...
• Continue
- Conditions : Flow, Concentration, WQ,…
• Continue
Other modifications
or running an event
• Or,
• Or,
In function of the answer, write in the file
which model can be run.
Write modification to the scenario file.
Under the scenario, event and model type.
- Condition 1 : Flow statistic, Concentration statistic, WQ statistic,...
- Condition 1 : Flow, Concentration, WQ,…
Click on continue
- Node 1 (click on map node, select from list) …...
Click on continue
Display window
Done by software
Effluent change at STW or other
discharge
- Node 1 (click on map node, select from list) …...
• Select nodes at which to change the consent discharge
Select discharge consents
- SIMCAT
Quality - RS
SIMCAT editor
Flow - RS-CS
Choose model
RS editor
available node in the network
Add the abstraction data to
the corresponding node in the
temp scenario file
Click on a point on the river
Other modifications
or running an event
Entering data
Window asking quantity and parameters for logical rules and time based
rules. Possibility of displaying advanced mode, or rules automatically set by
software. Example :
Click on “finish”
Window asking location of
abstraction #X
Choose output
Click on “Add abstraction”
Q entered
Calculating the rule
parameter and display them
where “Advanced” is not
ticked
Adding abstraction(s)
Display window
Done by software
Other modifications
or running an event
Click on continue
- enter the concentration of the pollution
- enter the volume or rate of pollution entering the river
- enter the type of pollution (conservative or nonconservative)
- where is the pollution event located on the river (select
input node)
Window asking user to enter
Yes - RS-CS quality
Choose output
Write that only the RS and CS model can
be run with this event.
Click on “Pollution events”
Pollution event
Display window
Done by software
type A that use the same model
Other modifications
Do you want to do other
modifications or to save the
scenario files ?
What if steps, write modifications
in the scenario file, and write model
to run in the scenario file.
Choose scenario type A
Save
What if steps
Browser - Choose what if file
Open existing what if
New what if ?
Open existing what if file ?
New what if
(A)
Keep the same scenario file under
scenario/temp
Create scenario file under
scenario/temp
Choice of displaying run window
automatically after closing this
window.
Save under the same name or
choose another name
Save the temp scenario file
under the definitive repertory
and name.
Create a copy of the existing scenario
file under scenario/temp
Close window
or
Display run window automatically
Automatic change to models
Automatic ‘what-if’: scenario type A
Display window
Done by software
Save results in the same database
Use all expert rules
Or
If expert rules selected, derive the
new data from the results of the run.
Save all results in a the database in
the scenario folder. Erase temp
modified model(s)
Run. Run parameters (run length,
time step, iteration) automatically
selected.
- Import event to run
- Read scenario file and do
modification to model(s)
- Copy them in temp file
- Select the model(s) to run
Read scenario file - Read which
parameters can be run
Choose model to run
Window asking which results are needed
(i.e. which model to run)
and press “run auto”
Select scenario, event, (climate
change), (expert rules),
Close run window
Press “Close”
(- Select expert rules applied to the results)
- Select climate change (Between range of
choice)
- Select event(s) to run
- Select scenario to run from list
Window asking :
Press ‘Run scenario’ button
Enter run
parameters
Window asking run parameters
Choose model to run
Window asking which results are needed
(i.e. which model to run)
and press “run expert”
Select scenario, event, (climate
change), (expert rules),
Save results in the same database
Use all expert rules
Or
Done by software
Display window
If expert rules selected, derive the
new data from the results of the run.
Save all results in a the database in
the scenario folder. Erase temp
modified model(s)
Run
- Read scenario file and do
modification to model(s)
Run procedure
Create scenario file
under scenario/temp
New what if ?
Choose scenario type B
(B)
New what if
Other scenario
Close what if window
Leave
Other modifications
What if steps
Do you want to do other scenario,
other changes to the same scenario
or leave ?
Display results of the
calculation with exporting
options
What if steps and no modification
of any model
No change to models
Simple ‘what-if’ question (type B)
Display window
Done by software
Create scenario file under
scenario/temp
Choose scenario type C
What if steps
Import model into SMURF as a new
basecase for scenarios
(C)
New what if
New what if ?
Manual change to models
Manual ‘what-if’ question (type C)
Display window
Done by software
For a model edited outside of SMURF if any new nodes are added then nodes
must be added to the corresponding GIS layer to allow the results to be
displayed in SMURF. Also the file must be saved in the SMURF system in
the scenario section under scenarios\structures\filename.***
Tells the user to edit a copy of the model (basecase) they are interested in, in
the model program itself e.g. RS or RS-CS linked model. Also to capture the
full effects of the structure it is necessary to use the full hydrodynamic model.
Or if good rating curves are available a simple representation with two
sections is possible in routing.
Window telling the user
Yes - RS-CS quality
Choose output
Select add structure
Display list of possible scenarios
Adding structure(s)
Manual ‘what-if’: question 5
Display window
Done by software
Select wetland scenario
For a model edited outside of SMURF if any new nodes are added
then nodes must be added to the corresponding GIS layer to allow
the results to be displayed in SMURF. Also the file must be saved
in the SMURF system in the scenario section under
scenarios\structures\filename.***
To edit a copy of the model (basecase) they are interested in, in
the model program e.g. RS or RS-CS linked model. To capture
the full effects of the wetland on the inflow to the river it is
necessary to link the inflow to a reservoir unit which is then
linked to the main river using the junction the inflow was attached
to. It is possible to use the reservoir in the routing model to
capture the dynamic impact the wetland has on the flow regime.
Yes - RS-CS quality
Choose output
Scenarios list
Adding wetland(s)
Display window
Done by software
For a model edited outside of SMURF if any new
nodes are added then nodes must be added to the
corresponding GIS layer to allow the results to be
displayed in SMURF. Also the file must be saved in
the SMURF system in the scenario section under
To edit a copy of the model (basecase) they are
interested in, in the model program e.g. RS or RS-CS
linked model. Also to capture the full effects of the
morphological change it is necessary to use the full
hydrodynamic model.
Yes - RS-CS quality
Choose output
Click on “Change cross section”
Changing river morphology
Display window
Done by software
If expert rules selected, derive the new data from the results of
the run. Save results in the same database
Save all results in a the database in the scenario folder. Erase
temp modified model(s)
Run steady then unsteady. Run parameters (run length, time
step, iteration) automatically selected.
If climate change selected, derive the new event(s) from the
selected event(s)
- Read scenario file and do modification to model(s)
Click on “finish”
Window asking :
Press ‘Run
scenario’ button
Close run window
Press “Close”
- Select expert rules applied to the results
- Select climate change
- Select event(s) to run
Enter run
parameters
Other modifications
If climate change selected, derive the new event(s) from the
selected event(s)
- Read scenario file and do modification to
model(s)
If expert rules selected, derive the new data from the results of
the run. Save results in the same database
Save all results in a the database in the scenario folder. Erase
temp modified model(s)
Save
Do you want to do other
modifications or to save the
scenario files ?
Calculating the nearest available
node in the network(s) for (1), (2)
and (3)
Choice of displaying run window
automatically after closing this
window.
Save under the same name or
choose another name
Answer questions
- Choose the outflow location to the surface water drainage (if
relevant) (2)
Software automatically
Run steady then unsteady
- Sewage flow quality (d)
- Additional sewage flow (c)
- Drainage flow quality (b)
- Additional drainage flow (a)
Calculating (fuzzy equations)
Click on “Software calculating the outflow location”
- User giving the centre of the development
(software calculating the outflow location)
- User setting the outflow location
Window asking
Click on continue
Click on existing
Hydrograph type
Add development
scenario
User secondary flow
Software flow
User flow
Individual scenario
Display window
Close window
or
Display run window
automatically
in the temp scenario file. Also write
information on removed natural runoff
area from model if applicable
Add (c)+(d) information to (3)
Add (a)+(b) information to (1) & (2)
Done by software
KEY
Save the temp scenario file
under the definitive repertory
and name.
Use flow path tool to determine to which
STW the sewage is going and where the
surface water is going
Click on continue
Import new hydrograph
Percentage change to hydrograph
Incremental change to hydrograph
Window saying/showing to which STW
the sewage is going, what is the
additional flow, as well as where the
surface water is going and what is the
additional flow
Change to coefficients
Coefficient type
Select an existing development
Choose output
Click on “Add development”
- Choose the outflow location to the surface water drainage (if
relevant) (2)
Window asking the user to
Answer questions
Display additional water needed
Click on “User setting the outflow location”
(fuzzy equations)
Calculating water needed
- foul/separated or both (% of f/s)
- number of inhabitant/households
- size of development
Window asking
Coefficient type
Add new or modify existing development
Display list of possible scenario type A
that use the same model
Window asking run
parameters
Choose model to run
Click on New
Input hydrograph or coefficient type
Import or type in the
hydrograph
Hydrograph
type
Keep the same scenario file
under scenario/temp
Calculating the rule parameter and
display them where “Advanced” is
not ticked
Window asking which results
are needed (i.e. which model
to run)
Select scenario, event, (climate change), (expert
rules), and press “run expert”
Entering data
Q entered
Add abstraction
scenario
Window asking quantity and parameters for logical rules and time based rules.
Possibility of displaying advanced mode, or rules automatically set by software.
Example:
on the river
Click on a point
Window asking location of abstraction
#X
Select scenario, event, (climate change), (expert
rules), and press “run auto”
Choose model to run
Choose output
Click on “Add abstraction”
- Select scenario to run from list
Add the abstraction data to the
corresponding node in the temp
scenario file
available node in the
network
Window asking which results
are needed (i.e. which model
to run)
In function of the answer, write in the file which
model can be run.
Click on continue
• Continue
- Conditions : Flow, Concentration, WQ,…
• Or,
- Condition 1 : Flow, Concentration, WQ,…
- Node 1 …...
Choose output
Discharge
consents
scenario
Click on “discharge consents”
Composite flow chart showing the processes of
the ‘What if’ and ‘Run scenario’ tools
Choose scenario type C
Choose scenario type B
What if steps
Display list of possible
scenarios type B
What if steps and no
modifications to any model
Ecology
Expert Rules
Write that only the RS and CS model can be run
with this event.
Click on continue
- enter the concentration of the pollution
- enter the volume or rate of pollution entering the river
- enter the type of pollution (conservative or non-conservative)
- where is the pollution event located on the river (select input node)
Import model into SMURF as a
new basecase
For a model edited outside of SMURF
if new nodes are added then nodes
must be added to the corresponding
GIS layer to allow the results to be
displayed in SMURF. Also the file
must be saved in the SMURF system in
the scenario section under
scenarios\wetland\filename.***
Close what if window
Do you want to do another scenario, make
changes to the same scenario, or leave?
Display results of the calculation
with exporting options
To export and edit a copy of the model
case (basecase) they are interested in,
in the model itself e.g. RS or RS-CS
linked model.
What if steps
Fisheries
Expert Rules
For a model edited outside of SMURF
if new nodes are added then nodes
must be added to the corresponding
GIS layer to allow the results to be
displayed in SMURF. Also the file
must be saved in the SMURF system in
the scenario section under
To export and edit a copy of the model
case (basecase) they are interested in,
in the model itself e.g. RS or RS-CS
linked model. Also to capture the full
effects of the structure it is necessary
to use the full hydrodynamic model.
Or if good rating curves are available a
simple representation with two
sections is possible in routing.
Yes - RS-CS quality
Choose output
Add
wetland
scenario
Click on “add
wetland”
Create a copy of the
existing scenario file under
scenario/temp
Yes - RS-CS quality
Window asking user to enter
Yes - RS-CS quality
Choose output
Add structure
scenario
Click on “add structure”
Browser - Choose
existing what if file
Choose output
Pollution event
scenario
Click on “Pollution events”
Choose scenario type A
Display list of possible
scenario
Create scenario file
under scenario/temp
New what if
New what if ?
Press ‘What
if’ button
What if steps
Sustainability
Indicator
Expert Rules
To run model in SMURF or
do other modifications
For a model edited outside of SMURF if any
new nodes are added then nodes must be
added to the corresponding GIS layer to
allow the results to be displayed in SMURF.
Also the file must be saved in the SMURF
system in the scenario section under
scenarios\morphology\filename.***
To export and edit a copy of the model case
(basecase) they are interested in, in the
model itself e.g. RS or RS-CS linked model.
Also to capture the full effects of the
morphological change it is necessary to use
the full hydrodynamic model.
Yes - RS-CS quality
Choose output
Channel
morphology
change scenario
Click on
“Channel
morphology”
Appendix E
Functional Specifications
SMURF Functional Specification
Reference A.1
System components
Component:
Access and display of river and STW
water quality data
Option:
Base
Version:
AFT 13/3/03
Objectives:
· Access to data via a GUI/GIS using geo-referenced sampling ‘points’
· Display raw data and associated summary statistics in graphical form
· Inclusion of quality objectives and consent details (reference data)
· Comparison of data at several sampling points
· Comparison of different determinands at one site (including river flow)
· To display water quality data with other GIS (land use) features (e.g. new
developments, contaminated sites, pollution events)
Data inputs: Essential data
· Sample results for all key,
agreed determinands for all
GQA sites
· Sample results for all key,
agreed determinands for all
STWs and other major
continuous discharges
· Reference data for each
sampling point (e.g. RQO class,
data availability, annual means,
percentiles etc.)
· Consent conditions for each
discharge
Data inputs: Optional data
· Photograph of sampling
site/discharge point
· Photograph/design drawings of
outfall or other associated
infrastructure
Methods:
· Access to data by clicking the sampling point ‘spot’
· Selection of data to plot/display from pop-up window of reference data
· Display of graphs against each selected sampling point
· Reference table of essential and optional data available at each sampling point
Data outputs:
· Tables of data availability and reference data for each site
· Annotated plots for selected sites and determinands, with details of RQO and
other objective values
Issues:
· Linking display and database
· Data storage requirements for all sampling points
· Software to produce graphs
· Limits on number of parameters and/or sites to display at one time
· Updating of database – needs to be separate to GUI/GIS software
· Agreed format for database, to link to EA/S-T Water export facilities
Key stakeholders:
· Environment Agency – provision of river quality data, summary statistics and
RQO compliance
· Environment Agency – provision of quality data and consent details for other
continuous discharges
· Severn Trent Water – provision of STW quality and flow data
Reference A.2
System components
Component:
Colour-coding of river according to
RQO achievement and GQA class
Option:
Base
Version:
AFT 13/3/03
Objectives:
· To identify and display details for each river stretch used for quality compliance
· To code the river according to the RE and GQA class achieved
· To display details of the degree of non-achievement of RQO compliance
· Spatial references for start and
end of each assessment reach
· Reference data for each reach
· RQO objectives for each reach
· RE class achieved for each reach
for each year
· Photographs of reach
Methods:
· Select a single reach to display its reference data and RE status
· Select a point to colour-code the entire river system upstream
· Select all reaches that achieve a certain RE class or those that fail their objective
Data outputs:
· Table of reference data displayed against a selected reach
· A colour-coded river network, showing achievement of various quality classes
Issues:
· Linking display and the database
· Best software to use to undertake the colour-coding
· Need to digitise the river network into the inter-linked assessment reaches?
Key stakeholders:
· Environment Agency – provision of reach information and details of RQO
compliance
Reference A.3
System components
Option:
Base
Component:
Display of biological and fisheries
data
Version:
AFT 14/3/03
Objectives:
· To select sampling data by clicking relevant sampling ‘point’
· To display summary of biological and fisheries data against a GIS background
· To compare biological and fisheries data with other data types (water quality,
flow etc.)
· To display biological and fisheries data with other GIS (land use) features
· To show compliance of river network against GQA biological objectives
· Raw and summary sample data
for each sampling point
· Reference data for each sampling
point
· Images of sampled species
Methods:
· Access to data by clicking the sampling point ‘spot’
· Display of reference data against selected sampling point
· Data summarised in pie chart and summary scores (BMWP and ASPT)
· Display of data for different sites and for different years at same site
· Colour-code river according to GQA biological standard achieved
· Display with GIS (land use) features
Data outputs:
· Tables of reference data displayed against each selected site
· Graphical summary of sample data
· Colour-coded river network (see A.2) according to GQA class achieved
Issues:
· Availability and coverage of data
· Format of national fisheries database
· Availability of summary statistics
Key stakeholders:
· Environment Agency – provision of sample data
· Environment Agency – provision of reach information and details of RQO
compliance
Reference A.4
System components
Option:
Base
Component:
Access and display of hydrometric
data
Version:
AFT 19/3/03
Objectives:
· To access relevant hydrometric data via recording points in GIS
· To display quantity data alongside quality and biological data
· Mean daily flows at all gauging
stations
· Daily rainfall for raingauges
· Short-period rainfall from
autographic gauges (15 minutes)
· Water levels from level gauges
· Photographs of recording sites
· Details of rating curves/gauging
station details etc.
· Flow data from STWs
Methods:
· Access to data by clicking the gauging point ‘spot’
· Selection of data to plot/display from pop-up window of reference data
· Display of time-series graphs against each selected point
· Summary of data in tabular form and flow duration curve
Data outputs:
· Table of reference data for each selected point
· Plot of daily flows or rainfall
· Plot of short-period rainfall
· Table of summary statistics
· Flow duration curve
Issues:
· Volume of data to store (may need 30 years for good flow statistics)
· May need/want to display other summaries of the data (e.g. Q95 along the
rivers)
Key stakeholders:
· Environment Agency – provision of hydrometric data
· Severn Trent Water for additional rainfall and STW flow data
Reference B.1
System components
Component:
Display of SIMCAT data and results
Option:
Modelled
Version:
AFT 14/3/03
Objectives:
· To display SIMCAT input data against the geographic feature they represent
(e.g. river reach, STW discharge, river sampling site)
· To display SIMCAT model outputs at selected monitoring points
· SIMCAT input file for ‘existing
conditions’
· SIMCAT output file(s)
· Graphical representation of
input data (e.g. probability plots
of quality)
Methods:
· Access to SIMCAT model input data by clicking river reach or other ‘point’
features
· SIMCAT features included in dedicated GIS layer
· Display of results at selected points in tabular and graphical format
Data outputs:
· Display of input data fields for all model features
· Display of results at key monitoring sites in tabular and graphical format
· Separate GIS layer(s) for SIMCAT model features
Issues:
· Confusion with additional GIS layers for same features (reaches and points)
· Best way to plot input and output data
Key stakeholders:
· Environment Agency – to provide SIMCAT data and results, and to advise on
most suitable way to represent data graphically
Reference B.2
System components
Component:
Coding of river reaches according to
SIMCAT results
Option:
Modelled
Version:
AFT 26/3/03
Objectives:
· To colour code the river according to the results of a SIMCAT model run, to
allow comparison with the coding of RQO/GQA assessments
· Statisrics of quality from
SIMCAT results for each reach
· Reach strucutre of SIMCAT
model
·
Methods:
· Select a reach or reaches for which to display the SIMCAR results, according to
the same approach adopted for the RQO/GQA coding
· Supply a key to give the coding used
Data outputs:
· The selected river raech(es) colour coded accoridng to the model results
· Concurrent display at key monitirng sites of summary stautistics
· Key for coding employed
Issues:
· Need to distinguish between coding of observed data and modelled results
· Need or desire to highlight recahes that have chnaged value (i.e. improvemet or
deteerioration)
Key stakeholders:
· Environmnet Agency – provision of SIMCAT model strcuture and results
Reference C.1
System components
Option:
Groundwater
Component:
Display and analysis of groundwater
level data
Version:
AFT 19/3/03
Objectives:
· To display time-series of groundwater levels at each observation borehole
· To produce a 3-D surface (including contours) of groundwater table elevation
for different times
· To display prediction of future groundwater levels
· Location of all observation
boreholes
· Measured groundwater levels
· Details of borehole stratigraphy
· Existing model predictions of
groundwater level changes
Methods:
· Access to borehole data by selecting observation points
· Plotting of time-series of water levels
· Plotting of future trend (by using existing modelled predictions or own analysis
software)
Data outputs:
· Time-series of groundwater levels at each observation borehole
· Trend analysis and future prediction of groundwater levels at each location
· 3-D surface of groundwater levels at selected time frames, including future
predictions
Issues:
· Lack of groundwater data (spatially) to produce meaningful 3-D surface and
contours
· Lack of data to produce adequate trend analysis
Key stakeholders:
· Environment Agency – to provide raw data and modelled trend analysis
Reference C.2
System components
Option:
Groundwater
Component:
Linking of groundwater levels with
other 3-D surfaces
Version:
AFT 19/3/03
Objectives:
· To ‘model’ relationship between groundwater levels and the elevations of other
surfaces (e.g. ground surface, sewer inverts)
· DEM or other ground elevation
model/data
· Sewer model data giving pipe
inverts and manhole levels
·
Methods:
· Produce 3-D surfaces from sewer model data of pipe inverts and manhole levels
· Link all 3-D layers to identify points/areas of intersection
· Produce new GIS layers of areas below or within a certain limit of the
groundwater table
· Calculate likely infiltration rates into sewers from above analysis, including for
future predictions
Data outputs:
· New GIS layers of 3-D surfaces (contours) of water above or close to ground
levels, sewers below water table etc.
· Mapping of sewers and other infrastructure at various levels of risk from
groundwater flooding
Issues:
· Lack of suitable DEM
· Volume of data from sewer model (too much or too little)
· Sensitivity of issue – inclusion within SMURF?
· Knowledge on infiltration rates
· Ability to calibrate infiltration model
Key stakeholders:
· Environment Agency – provision of good DEM data
· Severn Trent Water – provision of sewer models
· Birmingham City Council – provision of additional road level data
Reference D
Identification of ‘What if’ scenarios
The SMURF system will help decision making within the three partner organisations. Each
organisation has a different function and each will therefore use SMURF for different
purposes. The decision making support that the SMURF system must provide will, as a result,
be specific to each organisation. SMURF must be able to assess questions and scenarios for
each organisation. As well as displaying information, SMURF may be used for:
·
·
·
·
Display of the series of questions that must be asked in a particular decision making
process to prompt the user.
Assessing ‘what if’ scenarios and displaying the results.
Providing details of the model changes and run configuration needed to address any
question
Providing a simple ‘expert’ rule-based process for generating the ‘what-if’
Organisation
EA (WQ)
EA (Biology,
fisheries)
EA (Fisheries)
1
2
3
If the composition of the fish population changes at a site, how will this change
the overall statistics for the fisheries for the rest of the river network?
The base fisheries data stored in SMURF.
SMURF will compute the impact of changes on:
Composition by numbers of fish classified by base data characteristics.
Relative proportions at each site of fish classified by base data characteristics.
If the habitat characteristics of the river corridor change, how will this impact
the river biology (including fish)?
RIVPACS model results.
Depending on the quality and the nature of the output from RIVPACS, SMURF
may need to contain some basic rules that can model these impacts.
Simple expert rules could be used to relate habitat changes to predicted changes
in biology (which should also consider WQ effects from above)
If the consent conditions at a STW or other discharge change, how does this
impact the river water quality? OR If the water quality at one or more
locations change, how does this change the GQA classifications and how does it
impact water quality throughout the rest of the river?
SIMCAT model results for parameter values downstream.
OR, output of SIMCAT model changes for ‘what-if’ for subsequent external run
New input data generated for catchment routing model and run executed
SMURF may have to provide some further processing of
concentration/discharge calculations using the SIMCAT output if SIMCAT does not
provide enough data to go straight to the output indicated in the next column. To do
this, river flows and present water quality data will be required.
Question & data/models required to provide answer
Identification of ‘What if’ scenarios
Ref.
Table 1
Display the calculations in pie
charts or other appropriate
methods. Highlight where the site
with the highest and lowest
proportions of the total changes.
Tabular or graphical output of
RIVPACS results: numbers of
taxa, ASPT and BMWP scores
(before and after).
Water quality concentrations for
the entire river network
downstream of the STW or
discharge. Colour coding of GQA
class. Highlighting of stretches
where water quality degrades or
improves. Include unacceptable
impacts to other factors, i.e. it may
be ok for a stretch to decline one
GQA class in WQ terms, but this
may be highly unacceptable if it is
a designated fishery.
Output
EA (Water
resources,
WQ, etc)
EA
EA
(Conservation)
EA
4
5
6
7
Add a new discharge point
If a new wetland is created, what will the impact be on the flow regime?
Input or derive change in model parameters and run model to assess impact on
flood levels and rates
If a structure (e.g. a weir or reservoir) is built at a site on the river, what will
the impact on the river be?
Sediment transport modelling to assess changes in morphology (or inferred
from predicted velocity/depth changes).
From the resulting changes in morphology, assess the impact on water quality,
habitat, biology, fisheries etc. This will require base data on these factors and
running of WQ model.
Impact on high flows (flooding) and low flows.
If an abstraction licence for x Ml/d is granted at a location, how will this
influence the river flows, the water quality and other factors?
Flow data and current abstractions.
Output from existing CAMS assessments.
Other factors to be assessed to their specific requirements, e.g. assess impact on
water quality as in ref.1 above.
Change in flow duration and WQ could be assessed by both SIMCAT and the
routing model
Could link change in flow (and velocity/depth) to simple rules regarding habitat
and biology (e.g. reduced velocity is less suitable for fish)
Flow and levels for the entire
network downstream of the new
discharge.
Show area simulated in GIS and
change in flood extent/depths etc.
Display outline for altered
morphology of river channel, with
extent and location of structure
clearly shown on map. Display
impact on parameters as
appropriate for the parameter, most
will be tabulated or graphical.
Representation of flows in flood
outlines (before and after).
Display the calculated effect on
river flows at gauging stations.
Impact on water quality should be
displayed as in ref. 1 above. Other
factors displayed as appropriate.
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
BCC
BCC
EA,BCC
8
9
10
11
12
13
If a site is selected for a development or implementation of any feature, what
are the different constraints ?
Where are best locations for new development, or what are implications of
proposed sites?
Simple rules, linking to existing GIS/data and model runs, to highlight impacts
of development sites or features (e.g. WQ and flows)
Where are best places to ask for SUDS in new developments?
GIS layers showing best locations according to certain categories
How might groundwater levels impact on sewer system?
Show graphical trend of water table at selected locations
Display 3D surface for selected elevations below sewer inverts
How do the water levels vary at each major outfall?
Use routing model with suitable flow sequence to produce flow/level duration
summary at each CSO
Produce results from other scenarios or observed/predicted trends
If there is a new development with population x, how will this impact the
distribution system, the WTW and the STW?
Distribution system modelling, other models?
Use expert rules to provide quick assessment of impacts?
Run sewer and other models to look at impact of increased runoff and effluent
GIS layer built on the addition of
all the layer representing a
potential constraint
New GIS layers of required
information, plus simple
assessment of where development
is preferred (e.g. near better WQ,
not in floodplain areas or
ecologically-sensitive sites)
GIS solution, but could have some
simple rules to aid decisionmaking.
3D surfaces of groundwater levels
for various timeframes, and for
various depths below sewer system
(for level of risk).
Graphical output of flow levels
against invert and soffit of each
outfall, with summary of frequency
and duration of submergence.
Depends on the output from
existing methods.
Highlight system changes in GIS
layers. Show change in flow paths.
Show change in surface runoff and
likely impact on WQ.
If there is a point source pollutant released into the river what is the effect on
water quality? What will the effect on river quality be ?
EA
EA
15
16
What will be the effect of changing the river morphology ? (i.e. recreate natural
area instead of culverted reaches)
Climate change scenario
14
Water quality for the river network
downstream of the point source
pollution.
Simple rules linking type of reach
to : hydraulic characteristics,
ecology and eventually the
pollution degradation and
transport. Then reinsert these data
into the global network and
calculate effects downstream.
Updating hydrological data by
increasing values by a given
percentage

SMURF Project Methodology and Techniques - wise

Transcription

Similar documents

Untitled

EmployEe priciNg EvENt - Gavigan`s Home Furnishings

Cabinet Magazine

gargamel`s magic spell

Untitled

magazine - The Blade

Apr-May Newsletter - Hilltop Middle School

Colleen Farrow - All Occasions Management

M usic , M oviesand M ore