Case study:River Nar Restoration Project: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site
{{Site
Line 62: Line 67:
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Image gallery}}
 
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
Line 69: Line 73:
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Revision as of 14:08, 6 September 2013

3.00
(one vote)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 52° 38' 26.03" N, 0° 21' 55.06" E
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status In progress
Project web site
Themes Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Mark
Main contact surname Watson
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation WWF-UK
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trus-tees
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
River Nar Castle Acre Common WEG project
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name River Nar
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use Intensive agriculture (arable)
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category 500 - 1000 k€
Total cost (k€) 900900 k€ <br />900,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Catchment Restoration Funds

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Morphology, Water quality
Hydromorphology Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
Biology Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
Physico-chemical Nutrient concentrations
Other reasons for the project Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor Floodplain reconnection
Planform / Channel pattern Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
Other The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Fish No Yes No No No Awaiting results

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information