The Lambourn, in Berkshire, is a designated SSSI SAC chalk riverflowing for 24km from the village of Lambourn to Newbury where it meets the River Kennet. As animportant wild trout fishery, the riversupports luxuriant beds of watercrowfoot and a rich diversity ofassociated plant and animal speciesincluding brook lamprey and bullhead.

The project focused on an 800m reachmanaged by the Bagnor Estate at HuntsGreen. Past physical modifications hadleft it straightened, over wide andover deep. Consequently the riverwas sluggish, silty and sparsely vegetated. The soft, organic-richalluvium banks are ideal crayfishburrowing habitat. Despite trappingefforts bank collapse, over wideningand silt pollution continued.

The aim was to restore classic chalkstream features including a cleangravel bed and extensive beds ofwater crowfoot. Re-profiling of the high banks and re-alignment of thechannel achieved angler aspirationsand met Natural England’s natureconservation objectives.

River RestorationNEWSNEWSLETTER of the RIVER RESTORATION CENTRE

Issue 26March 2007

Tel/Fax: 01234 752979 Email: rrc@theRRC.co.uk

A transformed riverwith habitat not fit for a signal crayfish

Continues on Page 2

Reprofiled bank and low gravel berm - May 2006 (Russ Money)

Prior to the restoration scheme onthe Lambourn Bruce Wheeler,

the river keeper, caught signal crayfish by the cage load.This project demonstrates how

habitat improvements can be made,whilst controlling these unwanted

species. Russ Money (NaturalEngland) and Simon Cain (Cainbio-engineering) summarise the

story of a transformed SSSI river.

Low angle bank re-profiling to support marginal plantsGravel and cobble to protect thebank toe designed below summerwater levels.

In light of the recent drought conditions in south-east England the

A variety of techniques such asbrushwood mattresses, deflectors,causeways and berms were used to increase channel sinuosity and in-stream turbulence. This resultedin the re-generation of geomorphicforms such as pools and riffles with associated substrates. Key todesign success was marginal habitatpromotion on both banks whilstallowing for single bank angler access.

Built-in Crayfish resistance was acritical consideration. The restorationdeliberately set out to create un-favourable bank conditions forcrayfish to inhibit burrowing andreduce their numbers. This wasachieved using a variety of approachesappropriately designed for the flowconditions and channel alignment.

These included:Flow deflection and brushwoodsilt traps to encourage silt margins

INSIDE THIS ISSUEA Transformed River

Wetlands: Climate Change

Accounting for Sediment

STREAM project,River Avon

James Bond does River Restoration

News and Events

For further information on the RRCand its activities please view

our website: www.theRRC.co.uk

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Pages 4/5

Pages 6/7

Page 8

2

project also tried to design in featuresthat would accommodate lower thanaverage flows in the expectation thatsuch events might become more frequent. Thus the restoration wasdesigned using a two stage channelapproach with the creation of low-profile gravel sills to maintainhigh velocities during low flow periods whilst providing the necessarychannel capacity at high flows.

The results so far have been verypositive in terms of habitat improvement despite the 2006drought conditions. This projectprovides a model of how quicklyand cost effectively a scheme can besuccessfully delivered especially

when there is a close partnershipbetween fisheries, statutory organisations and contractors. Thescheme was delivered expeditiouslyfrom a start up meeting in January2006 to completion a few monthslater in April 2006 at a cost of £80Kwith additional work in kind (ca. £25K) provided by the Estate(ie manpower, site supervision andlocally won materials).

Continues from Page 1

3 months post construction - restoredchannel and revegetated berm (Simon Cain)

For more information contact:Russ Money: russ.money@naturalengland.org.uk

or Simon Cain: simon@cainconsultancy.co.ukNatural England provided funding, Cain Bioengineering Ltd designed andinstalled the scheme. This was delivered through a management agreement

between Natural England and the Bagnor Estate.

World Wetlands Day is celebrated anually to mark thesigning of the Convention on Wetlands on 2nd February1971 in the Iranian city of Ramsar. Activities which promote the value of wetlands are organised all aroundthe world ranging from art competitions for school children to lectures and guided nature walks.

This year’s World Wetlands Day conference, organised by CIWEM, took place in central London on 31st January – 1st February. The conference wasentitled ‘Developing Practice on the Ground’.Presentations were given by a wide range of speakers.Some of the underlying themes included a strongemphasis on the economic value of wetlands and theservices that they provide; strong concerns over thethreats to these important ecosystems; the need for amore integrated approach; and the importance of community involvement in developing project ownership and success.

During his opening speech, Barry Gardiner MP,Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs,called for a rethink on the way we treat our wetlands.Although we’re supposed caretakers of this planet, hedescribed how we have over-exploited it for short-termgain. He said that wetlands are a major resource, notleast because they are ‘a weapon against climatechange, not just a victim of it’. The Minister went on to highlight recent projects in the Humber estuary andat Wallasea Island, Essex, where wetlands have been re-created to manage flood risk and provide importanthabitat for protected bird species. The Minister warnedthat such crucial ecosystem services must be consideredin government decision-making processes.

Professor Charles Simenstad from the University ofWashington, Seattle gave an international dimensionwith his presentation on the challenge of restoring wetlands in coastal Louisiana. Here, 90km2 of wetlandsare lost each year on average. Post-Hurricane Katrina, thechallenge has become even greater because authoritieshave mistakenly regarded extensive high-walled leveesas the best protection, despite scientific evidence suggesting that wetlands can lessen storm surges.

Another highlight was Helen Smith’s presentation on the Little Ouse Headwaters Project, a small community-run project which was last year awardedthe RSPB/CIWEM Living Wetlands Award. Shedescribed how the project, based on the Norfolk-Suffolk border, was set up by local people wanting to re-develop a synergy between themselves and theFens. Managing 40 hectares of riparian habitat across 5 sites, the volunteers have created a haven for nationally-important wildlife, accessible greenspace for recreation, and even bolstered the local rural economy by the awarding of contracts locally. The project is a great example of the multiple benefits from sustainably managed wetlands.

The conference generated a lot of very interesting discussion. Aspects of the wetland environment that areoverlooked by policy such as ponds and small water bodies were highlighted, whilst the many case studiesgave a bright outlook for the future of UK and international wetlands - but only if wetland restorationworks remain a government policy prority.

WETLANDS: A VICTIM OF CLIMATE CHANGE BUT A WEAPON AGAINST IT

Wetlands were identified as an invaluable resource at CIWEM’s World Wetlands Day conference.Harriet Greene (CIWEM) and Alice Fellick (RRC) provide a short account.

3

The importance of ensuring connectivity in the fluvial sedimenttransfer system is not only recognised in many restorationdesign methods (Copeland et al.2001)1 but is also an importantcomponent of the hydromorphologyelement of the Water FrameworkDirective (WFD). Restoration designsthat disrupt sediment connectivitymay require unsustainable maintenance to prevent channelinstability from later destroyingvaluable habitats in the restoredreach. Further, in streams coveredby the WFD2, failing to accountfor sediment may lead to a schememissing the required environmentalstandard when the proposedrestoration design is assessedusing the Morphological ImpactAssessment Tool – MImAS3.

In the UK, sediment dynamics arecurrently considered in restorationdesign by geomorphologists, usingthe ‘Fluvial Audit’ approach (Searet al. 2003)4, which places localsediment issues properly withinthe catchment context. The FluvialAudit provides a practical approachthat can be applied across a rangeof catchment scales. It does not,however, explicitly indicate whethera proposed restoration design is consistent with maintaining sediment continuity and connectivityin the fluvial system. The sedimentcomputations required to definesediment continuity are seldomaddressed by geomorphologistsbut are conventionally performedby engineers, using iSIS Sediment5.However, the high cost (in bothtechnical resources and dataacquisition) of applying iSIS sediment tends to limit its use toflood defence applications and ithas been applied to only the mostwell financed river restorationschemes and then usually whenrestoration is being undertaken aspart of a flood alleviation scheme.

Accounting for sediment in riversColin Thorne, Nick Wallerstein and Philip Soar outline how a Flood Risk Management Research Consortium

(FRMRC) toolbox may help river restorers.

application at hand iscrucial. Selection mustconsider not only theneed for the scientificbasis for the tool tomatch the difficultyof the sediment issuebeing addressed, withinthe resources available;but also the need forthe outcome to strikethe right balancebetween stakeholdercredibility (which maybe low for simple, lowcost methods) and cognizance (perhaps a

problem for the more analyticallycomplex models) (See figure).

A factor common to all the toolsis that they are intended to buildon rather than replace, the FluvialAudit. Hence, the methods andmodels included in the toolbox allstart by assuming that the useralready has a sound, qualitativeunderstanding of the fluvial andsediment systems, gained from aFluvial Audit or equivalentmethodology.

River restorers interested inaccounting for sediment in theirscheme designs are invited toreview the sediment toolbox. Toolsare currently being tested by theFRMRC through application toselected sites across the UK incollaboration with the RiverRestoration Centre. The results willbe available later this year. Thetoolbox will then be made availablefor beta-testing. Once the testingphase is complete it is anticipatedthat training workshops will beoffered, starting in mid-2008, with the aim that accounting for sediment can become best practicein restoration design by the end ofthe decade.

It is in the context of the limitationsof conventional qualitative andquantitative methods of accountingfor sediment that the FRMRC6 hasassembled a toolbox that could be useful to river restorers faced withthe need to account for sedimentin restoration design within theconstraints imposed by limited resources of time and money.

Toolbox tools include: Streampower screening tool; RiverEnergy Audit Scheme (REAS);Sediment Impact AssessmentModel (SIAM); HydraulicEngineering Center – RiverAnalysis System (HEC-RAS 4.0);iSIS Sediment; CellularAutomaton Evolutionary Slopeand River Model (CAESAR).A recent account of the sedimenttoolbox may be downloaded freefrom the FRMRC7 website by following links to the User FocusedMeasurable Outcomes (UFMOs).

The tools range from simple,screening level tools that do notrequire sediment transport calculations to 1 and 2-dimensionalmodels capable of computing sediment fluxes and morphologicalchanges over large distances andlong timescales. Selection of atool that is appropriate to the

For futher infomation and references please refer to page 8

PROJECTSUCCESS

ManagementResourcesSociety

ScienceComplex Model

High

Low

Simple Model

Cognizance

Credibility

Balancing management resources, scientific complexity and stakeholder views

Island creation at The Broads,Upper Woodford

STREAM is a 4-year LIFE-Nature funded project focusing on the River Avon Special Area of Conservation. Jenny Wheeldon (STREAMProject Manager) and Alice Fellick (RRC) together with a contributionfrom Joanna Eyquem (Royal Haskoning) provide an insight into the

project after the first phase of the restoration works.

STREAM - StrManagement of the Riv

Electrofishing — part ofRoyal HaskoningÕs monitoring programme

4

The projectIn 2003 an ambitious partnership project was launched - the RiverAvon and Avon Valley Initiative(RAVVI). This project, featured inIssue 17 of RR News1, encompassedthe entire River Avon system and itstributaries in Wiltshire andHampshire. The project developedfollowing publication of the RiverAvon cSAC Conservation Strategy2

which identified the main issuesaffecting the ecological health ofthe River Avon Special Area ofConservation (SAC), and agreed ona range of actions required toaddress them. To put this strategyinto practice the partnership put forward a bid to the LIFE-Naturefund entitled STREAM - theSTrategic REstoration AndManagement of the River Avon(SAC) and Avon Valley Special

Protection Area(SPA). This bid

was accepted and the project beganin September 2005.

STREAM is a £1 million, four yearpartnership project. The aims of the project are to demonstrate andmonitor river restoration at six sites;link management of the lower reachesof the river with the floodplain; disseminate best practice to UK and European river managers andspecialists; and raise awareness ofthe river system and the project inthe local community by holdingopen days and events.

Restoration worksRestoration works at the six sites inthe Avon Valley will be staggeredover the four year life span of theproject. To date, restoration workshave been completed at two sites,which are the focus of this article:The Broads at Upper Woodford onthe River Avon and Iron Hatches atFovant on the River Nadder. These sites were restored inSeptember – October 2006.

The Broads, Upper Woodford -River AvonThis site is overwide with respect tothe current flow regime (25m–30m),with a uniform bed profile, poorlysorted substrate and very little in-channel vegetation. The objectiveof the restoration was to demonstratea range of bio-engineering techniques,that are useful for narrowing overwide rivers and hence increaseflow and substrate variation. This

demonstration site aims to provide a ‘toolbox’ of techniques that fishing clubs can use to help integrate the needs of riparian ecology with fishery management.

The restoration works carried outincluded brushwood and chestnutstakes in-filled with flint to createvegetated islands and the constructionof a causeway just above water level to narrow the channel, byappox. 25%, and create a shelteredbackwater area. A combination oflog weirs and D-shaped deflectors,made of brushwood, were used to encourage variation in flow and morphology. The design ofstructures was critical not only in terms of their success for thehydro-geomorphology but also inorder to ensure that the valuable watervole habitat on site was protected.

Iron hatches, Fovant - RiverNadderThis site is also over sized comparedto the current range of flows as aresult of historical dredging. Thebed is relatively homogeneous with little aquatic vegetation. Asluice at the downstream limit ofthe reach is used to maintain waterlevels, leading to slow flows andheavy siltation.

The restoration works carried out atthis site aimed to modify the channelto a more appropriate width andshape (approx. 30% of current width)thus allowing the impoundmentdownstream to be reduced andimproving in-channel and marginalhabitats. Selective coppicing of treeson the adjacent south river bank, toallow light to reach the channel andencourage good bankside vegetationcover, formed the first phase andprovided on-site material for the in-channel restoration. The treeworks had to be carefully managedsince the woodlands at this site areknown to be valuable habitat for

5

Deflectors at Iron Hatches narrowed thechannel and created variation in flow

- Strategic Restoration andent of the River Avon SAC

demonstrate how the use of relativelylow cost techniques can help toincrease stream physical habitat. It is anticipated that outputs willincrease confidence in the benefit of advocating such techniques to fishing clubs and other localinterest groups keen to improve river habitat quality.

Project supportThe project is supported financiallyby the European Commission’sLIFE-Nature fund. Project partnersNatural England (formerly EnglishNature), the Environment Agency,Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Hampshireand Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust andWessex Water have also committedfunding and support.

1 Past issues of RR News are availablefrom the RRC website.2 The River Avon cSAC ConservationStrategy (2003) can be viewed anddownloaded from:http://www.english-nature.org.uk/lifeinukrivers/strategies/Avon/avon.html

bats, and it was thus important tosafeguard their protection.

In the second phase of the worksdeflectors, made from the felledtrees, were installed, filled withbrash and topped with pre-plantedmatting to allow rapid vegetationgrowth. In addition, existing in-stream gravels were redistributedto increase the gravel depth in thefaster flowing narrowed channel.

Survey and monitoring workAll too often restoration projects are completed with limited or nomonitoring. From inception, theproject team were keen to ensurethat a programme of projectappraisal and monitoring would bean integral part of the restorationprocess. Natural England haveworked closely with consultantsRoyal Haskoning to establish anappropriate monitoring protocol thatemploys a variety of complementarytechniques and is realisticallyachievable within the confines ofavailable resources.

Royal Haskoning will undertakephysical and biological monitoringat the six restoration sites, comprisingone pre-restoration and one post-restoration survey at each site.Reach-scale mapping techniques,including physical biotope mapping,Fluvial Audit, River Corridor Surveyand repeat photography, will be

used to monitor change at allrestoration sites. Two of the siteswill also be subject to more detailedsurveys and include control sites.Detailed monitoring techniques will comprise macrophyte survey,fisheries survey, cross-section levelling survey and depth, velocityand substrate measurements.

The monitoring surveys will beused to document the restorationworks and comparisons will bemade concerning the physical andbiological relationships identified atthe time of survey, whilst bearing inmind other potentially influencingfactors and processes. It is hopedthat the project will demonstratethat it is possible to undertake auseful monitoring programme within the confines of a limitedbudget which may encourage theinclusion of monitoring withinother river enhancement initiatives.

Along side this the River RestorationCentre (RRC) is carrying out anassessment of all the sites pre, during and post restoration works.The restoration methods will bereviewed against their design objectives using the expert judgementand the experience of the Centrestaff. The RRC will consider themonitoring results in the context ofits experience of river restorationprojects throughout the UK to assessthe likely long-term outcomes at each site. This assessment will provide a summary of success and failure, and importantly, comment on longer term predicted success of the project.

Together the RRC and Royal Haskoning monitoring and project appraisal approaches will be used to report back to LIFE-Nature. Thesurveys should help to

Further detailsThe STREAM website will go live

imminently. It will contain details ofall aspects of the project, all reportsand publications, plus details of allevents. The website will be updated

as the project progresses.Please visit: www.streamlife.org.uk

A deflector at Iron Hatches, largelyconstructed using wood from on-site

James Bonddoes River Restoration

So you thought that James Bond was busy tracking down the banker to the world’s terrorist organisations,but it seems it is not his only mission of late. In Washington State, USA, Bond and his accomplices

(including ‘n’ (Manning’s), 0.007, Frieda Trees and the Dam Queen to name but a few) have been on a not-so-secret mission to ‘Free Rivers from their Bonds’. The River Restoration Centre was invited to attend

the River Restoration Northwest’s (RRNW) latest meeting (which had a James Bond ice-breaker theme) to discover how river restoration could play its part in this mission.Jenny Mant, RRC’s secret agent (alias Mayfly Nymph) reports…

6

On the RRC’s Secret ServiceIn a hotel near the Columbia River,Washington State, situated betweenthe steaming Mount St Helens volcano to the north and the film location for The Shining to the south, 380 delegates met inFebruary, 2007, to discuss the current success of river restoration.Although the conference focusedprimarily on northwest UnitedStates restoration, so far reaching isthe river restoration communicationnetwork that delegates gathered atthis venue from all parts of theUSA and Canada and even as far afield as Germany and the UK.

The World Is Not Enough(climate change) The conference did not start on an upbeat note. The first two papersprovided a Canadian perspective onthe impacts of climate change forenvironmental habitats. Future

climate change scenarios, based ondata from a recent (early February2007) Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) workinggroup report, suggest that within afew decades many of the nativecedars on the west coast of theUSA would be under threat. Sohave we already over-stepped an‘ecological footprint’ and upset theworld’s equilibrium too far toreverse current human inducedglobal climate change? Are we in a situation where whatever we do toreduce global climate change mightbe in vain or, do we need to reduceenergy consumption by 90% of itscurrent level to have any hope ofreducing current climate trends?Strong words indeed and certainlysufficient to wake up any jet laggedaudience.

These messages were soon moderated by the thought that manyspecies are resilient to change;

salmonid specieshave previouslyfound enoughhabitat niches to survive pastglacial periods,so why not thecurrent climatechange? It is this belief thatprovides theimpetus for riverrestoration andrehabilitationaimed at providing, at the

very least, refugia for riverinespecies whenever the opportunitypresents itself.

Never Say Never Again(monitoring)Donald Rumsfeld’s (ex USSecretary for Defence) poem “TheUnknown” was seen as particularlyrelevant to this conference, especiallywith respect to monitoring protocol.‘There are things we know weknow. We also know there areknown unknowns... But there arealso unknown unknowns, the oneswe don’t know we don’t know.’

An inspiring talk from Phil Roni(Northwest Fisheries ScienceCenter, Seattle, Washington),backed up by a series of case studies from other presenters, statedthat millions were spent each yearon rehabilitation of aquatic habitats.As such, scientists had a duty toensure that techniques used areeffective to guide future restoration

(Figure 1) Cedar Creek limiting fish passage: approx. a 6m barrier

The anti Bond Girls doing their bit to free rivers from their bonds

7

efforts (i.e. reduce the unknowns).He emphasised that the best chancefor understanding aquatic habitatswas through field experiments butthis could only be achieved withcontinued public support. He alsostressed that it was critical that thereason for monitoring was clearlystated in project objectives anddriven by defined questions. Insome cases, for example, the keyobjective maybe to establish statusand trends where annual measuresof abundance and habitat conditionwould need to be measured, whilstfor other projects, implementationand issues surrounding the projectconstruction and robustness of technique should be the main focus of the project appraisal. Only once the rationale for themonitoring is established can the correct parameters be selectedand the appropriate spatial and temporal replication sampling protocol be defined.

‘Q’ meets ‘n’ (restorationdesign is full of stress)The River Restoration Centre advocates careful design as a keycomponent of restoration success.The importance of considering thefundamental relationships betweenstream discharge and bankstrength/stress (as a combination ofsediment and vegetation type andquantity) in the design process wasa continuing theme throughout thethree days.

The west coast of the US is blessedwith many rivers where there isspace for natural unconstrained riverprocesses to occur. River restorersare therefore in the fortunate positionof being able to trial techniques onnatural rivers before demonstratingthem in more vulnerable andrestricted locations. Whilst UKrestoration may need to scale downsome of the techniques designedand demonstrated at this conference,we can certainly learn from thework already completed.

A refreshingly honest presentationby Douglas Shields (US Departmentof Agriculture) about the design of

large woody structures is agood example. At one sitewhere large wood was partof the restoration design,many of the structures weredestroyed or damaged following seasonal highflows. This led Shields andhis colleagues to re-examinethe design criteria. Theyrecognised that Manning’s n,drag and lift coefficients,wood density, and structureporosity were all fundamentalto confident design andappropriate anchor load. Thishowever, was not the end ofthe story. The importance ofnatural river processesshould never be far from themind of the river restorer. Inthis case, applied designsafety factors were directlyrelated to substrate type and its propensity to moveduring high flow events.

For Your Eyes Only (those dam dams)Whenever fish become akey restoration objective in the UK, fish passage is invariably a concern.Well, if you thought you had aproblem, spare a thought for thoseworking on the Cedar Creek damremoval scheme in WashingtonState as shown in figures 1–3.Before the dam could be obliterated,about 15,200m3 of sediment neededto be removed behind the structure.And how do you go about dewatering the system before you start the work? Subsequentrestoration included re-planting andbank stabilisation through the useof geo-textile matting and largeengineered log jams (a technique ofwhich the Pacific northwesternersare particularly fond).

So can James really help? Bond himself may by busy trackingdown criminals around the worldbut under current climate changescenarios the same urgency to secure habitat niches for environmental gain can be seen inthe restoration community. Withnew gadgets and n’s ingenuity, it

seems that whilst river restorersmight not be poised to take over the world, they are a force to bereckoned with in terms of ensuringour world (and its rivers) IS enoughto sustain a diverse range of habitat types.

Further information and acknowledgements

The presentations given at thisconference will soon be posted

on the RRNW’s website:www.rrnw.org.

For those of you attending the RRC conference this year

their conference organiser JanineCastro will be attending and will

be more than happy to answer any further questions.

In the meantime, if you have any burning questions

please contact the RRC.

Figures 1 - 3 courtesy of Bill Norris, Inter-fluve Inc.

(Figure 2) Removing 15,200m3 of sediment priorto Cedar Creek dam removal

(Figure 3) Post-dam removal grade control incorporating engineered log jams

News and Events

RRC is most grateful to all those who have contributed text or photos for this Newsletter

The following statutory organisations provide Core Funding for the River Restoration Centre and their Representatives form theAdvisory Board who together with RRC’s Directors make up the RRC Council.

8

Back copies of RR News are available from the RRC website. • For regular updates on what is happening check the RRC website news and events page.

Conferences

Climate Change and Aquatic Ecosystems in Britain: Science, Policy and ManagementMay 16th 2007 – University College LondonFor more information visit:www.ecrc.ucl.ac.uk/content/view/349/151

British Society for Geomorphology (BSG) AnnualConferenceJuly 4th – 6th 2007 – University of BirminghamFor more information visit: www.geomorphology.org.uk

Change in Aquatic Ecosystems:Natural and Human InfluencesJuly 4th – 6th 2007 – University of PlymouthFor more information visit: www.aquaticchange07.org

FBA Scientific Meeting: The Ecological effects ofOur Use of WaterSeptember 5th – 6th 2007 – FBA WindermereFor more information visit: www.fba.org.uk

Freshwater Habitat Management for Salmonid FisheriesSeptember 18th – 21st 2007 – University of SouthamptonFor more information visit: www.salmonidhabitat.com

4th ECRR International Conference on River RestorationJune 16th – 21st 2008 – Venice, ItalyFor more information visit: www.ecrr.org

Courses

River Restoration short courses 2007Portland State University, Oregon, USA.For more information visit: www.epp.esr.pdx.edu/riverrest.html

River RestorationMonitoring Workshop

In December 2006 the RRC organised a multi-disciplinary workshop. The aim was to bringtogether key people from a range of natural science

disciplines and backgrounds to agree a practical monitoring protocol for river restoration projects.It provided an excellent forum for discussion and

significant progress was made towards realising theworkshop goals and highlighting ways forward

to acheiving a monitoring protocol.A workshop summary will soon be available on the

RRC website: www.therrc.co.uk.This workshop was supported and sponsored by

Environment Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage andScottish Environment Protection Agency.

Further information for ‘Accounting for sediment’ article (From page 3)

Authors:Colin Thorne, Nick Wallerstein - School of Geography,University of Nottingham; Philip Soar - Jeremy Benn and Associates, Atherstone.References:1 http://libweb.wes.army.mil/uhtbin/cgisirsi/

34NBxfln5O/ERDC_VBG/185360025/523/64802 www.wfduk.org/3 www.sepa.org.uk/wfd/standards/index.htm 4 www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/

FD1914/FD1914_11 47_TRP.pdf5 www.wallingfordsoftware.com/products/isis 6,7 www.floodrisk.org.uk