Case study:Sir Maesyfed Salar 2012 (SMS 12): Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 33: Line 33:


• 100 farm plans completed. 80% or better coverage in Upper Arrow, Gladestry, Curl and Tippets catchments. Farm work now moving onto the Honeylake, Lower Arrow, Lugg, Aston Brook, Lye Brook, Ridgemoor Brook and Lime Brook.
• 100 farm plans completed. 80% or better coverage in Upper Arrow, Gladestry, Curl and Tippets catchments. Farm work now moving onto the Honeylake, Lower Arrow, Lugg, Aston Brook, Lye Brook, Ridgemoor Brook and Lime Brook.
• Erosion risk mapped on SCIMAP and used to help plan operations on all high risk farms.
• Erosion risk mapped on SCIMAP and used to help plan operations on all high risk farms.
• Nutrient management advice for 61 farms.
• Nutrient management advice for 61 farms.
• Potato day held and attended by most of the major growers in Herefordshire.
• Potato day held and attended by most of the major growers in Herefordshire.
• 7.627km of grant assisted riparian fencing erected with alternative water provided.
• 7.627km of grant assisted riparian fencing erected with alternative water provided.
• 22 farm infrastructure improvements completed.
• 22 farm infrastructure improvements completed.
• Weir removed on Pinsley Brook.
• Weir removed on Pinsley Brook.
• Easements at Downfield and Mahollam consented and due for completion this summer
• Easements at Downfield and Mahollam consented and due for completion this summer
• Owners consent secured and funds committed for an easement on Dayhouse Weir (Lugg). Temporary easement to be fitted if necessary.
• Owners consent secured and funds committed for an easement on Dayhouse Weir (Lugg). Temporary easement to be fitted if necessary.


Line 46: Line 54:


• 170 farm plans completed. SCIMAP proving an essential tool in reducing loss of topsoil.
• 170 farm plans completed. SCIMAP proving an essential tool in reducing loss of topsoil.
• 11.5km of grant assisted riparian fencing erected with alternative water sources provided.
• 11.5km of grant assisted riparian fencing erected with alternative water sources provided.
• 49 farm infrastructure improvements completed.
• 49 farm infrastructure improvements completed.
• Trial to establish most effective way of reducing soil loss from maize established. This is in response to the plans for an extra 2,000ha of maize in 2015 to feed the Anaerobic Digester (AD) plants. The trial is in partnership with Cranfield University and will run for a year.
• Trial to establish most effective way of reducing soil loss from maize established. This is in response to the plans for an extra 2,000ha of maize in 2015 to feed the Anaerobic Digester (AD) plants. The trial is in partnership with Cranfield University and will run for a year.
• Easement completed at Dayhouse weir in time for 2014's salmon run up the Lugg.
• Easement completed at Dayhouse weir in time for 2014's salmon run up the Lugg.
• Monitoring in late 2013 found 4 water bodies in the project area have been lifted to high status for fish. Electrofishing of Lugg and Arrow 2013 showed wide dispersal of salmon (except upper Lugg) including Curl, Hindwell, Pinsley and Knobley brooks.
• Monitoring in late 2013 found 4 water bodies in the project area have been lifted to high status for fish. Electrofishing of Lugg and Arrow 2013 showed wide dispersal of salmon (except upper Lugg) including Curl, Hindwell, Pinsley and Knobley brooks.
}}
}}

Revision as of 12:44, 15 September 2014

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 52° 16' 9.84" N, 3° 34' 19.81" W
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 http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/projects/sms12.php
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Water quality
Country Wales
Main contact forename Stephen
Main contact surname Marsh-Smith
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Wye & Usk Foundation
Contact organisation web site http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


This project is a triumph of persistence - the successful bid to the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) was third time lucky. Sir Maesyfed Salar 2012 (SMS 12) will restore the habitats of tributaries in the non- convergence area of Powys and Monmouthshire, including the river Elan. The Elan presents an unusual challenge. Having been impounded for Birmingham's water supply since 1901, the river has progressively lost its supply of bedstone and gravels. Floods have washed gravel out of the river but the dams have prevented any replacement. On top of that, low compensation flows have allowed what spawning beds there are to become compacted. These two problems have confined salmon spawning to just a few remaining areas. The plan is simple: gravel will be taken from the entrance to the reservoirs upstream and placed immediately below the dam. Sites where compaction is limiting spawning will be loosened with techniques we successfully pioneered in 1994. The other aspect of the project is to restore natural salmonid habitat by fencing and repair of erosion. Work will focus on the Ithon, its tributaries and other Radnorshire streams. Fencing out Radnor's massive stock of sheep and beef cattle will mean that streams that have lost all their vegetation will again have alder stands that stabilise some of the worst erosion and bank loss. The budget is £ 470,575 and the project will last for 2 years. We anticipate completing 30km of river improvement, along with gravel replacement on the Elan.


Project Progress


1st November 2012

• 3 new farm advisors recruited and trained. Farm advisory work commenced in September with farm visits in upper Arrow, Gladestry, Curl and Tippets catchments.


30th June 2013

• 100 farm plans completed. 80% or better coverage in Upper Arrow, Gladestry, Curl and Tippets catchments. Farm work now moving onto the Honeylake, Lower Arrow, Lugg, Aston Brook, Lye Brook, Ridgemoor Brook and Lime Brook.

• Erosion risk mapped on SCIMAP and used to help plan operations on all high risk farms.

• Nutrient management advice for 61 farms.

• Potato day held and attended by most of the major growers in Herefordshire.

• 7.627km of grant assisted riparian fencing erected with alternative water provided.

• 22 farm infrastructure improvements completed.

• Weir removed on Pinsley Brook.

• Easements at Downfield and Mahollam consented and due for completion this summer

• Owners consent secured and funds committed for an easement on Dayhouse Weir (Lugg). Temporary easement to be fitted if necessary.


1st April 2014

• 170 farm plans completed. SCIMAP proving an essential tool in reducing loss of topsoil.

• 11.5km of grant assisted riparian fencing erected with alternative water sources provided.

• 49 farm infrastructure improvements completed.

• Trial to establish most effective way of reducing soil loss from maize established. This is in response to the plans for an extra 2,000ha of maize in 2015 to feed the Anaerobic Digester (AD) plants. The trial is in partnership with Cranfield University and will run for a year.

• Easement completed at Dayhouse weir in time for 2014's salmon run up the Lugg.

• Monitoring in late 2013 found 4 water bodies in the project area have been lifted to high status for fish. Electrofishing of Lugg and Arrow 2013 showed wide dispersal of salmon (except upper Lugg) including Curl, Hindwell, Pinsley and Knobley brooks.

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
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
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
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

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
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


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

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