Case study:River Soar Floating Pennywort Eradication: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
{{Case study status
|Approval status=Draft
|Approval status=Approved
}}
}}
{{Location
{{Location
Line 56: Line 56:
}}
}}
{{Project background
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=96000
|Project started=2007/01/01
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Invasive species,
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=herbicide spraying, Removal of invasive plants,
|Management interventions=aerial sureys
}}
}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Measures}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{End table}}

Latest revision as of 12:22, 10 January 2017

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 52° 39' 16.18" N, 1° 7' 39.64" 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
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Rebecca
Main contact surname Brunt
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations Leicester City Council, Canal and River Trust
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.


Around 96km of the River Soar and River Trent in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire have in the past been choked by the non-native plant Floating Pennywort.

The plant was first identified in Leicestershire in 2004, thought to be an escapee from a private garden. It soon got a hold, growing fast in our waterways and out-competing our native plants. It can grow up to 20cm a day and spreads to block out light for other aquatic plants. The problem is so extensive that we have been carrying out annual herbicide spraying and some removal of the plant since 2007, with regular herbicide spraying from 2010.

The project will continue with spraying and undertake aerial surveys. It has been noticed that the weed has entered off line waterbodies after flooding events. Therefore we will also be contacting the owners of these waterbodies to highlight the presence of this invasive weed to see how these waterbodies can be tackled. Continue to spray on the Barrow Gravel Pits SSSI which will address one of its reasons for being in unfavourable condition.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


On a comparable length of watercourse that has been included in all surveys since 2007 (as the survey area has increased over the years) the approximate length of pennywort beds totalled 10.3km in 2009 and 1.6km in 2012, this is a significant decrease in the occurrence of this species.

We are already seeing the impacts of our work. Huge areas are now clear of Pennywort and the river is visible again. We have seen water lilies return in Abbey Park and fish are able to migrate as the water column is clear of the plant. Clearing the Grand Union Canal has made it much more accessible for boats.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


This is a constant battle, it is something that needs to be undertaken each year. There was no action in 2008 and this saw a huge increase in the presence of pennywort. As the occurrence of the plant becomes less the time and cost associated with the project also decreases.


Image gallery


Die back after spraying1.jpg
Die back after spraying2.jpg
Die back after spraying3.jpg
Die back after spraying4.jpg
Progress at Devils Elbow from 2010 and 2014.jpg
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Humber
River basin Soar

Subcatchment

River name River Soar from River Sence to River Wreake
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 116116 m <br />0.116 km <br />11,600 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB104028047030



Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB104028047030
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name River Soar from River Sence to River Wreake
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
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 2007/01/01
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 Invasive species
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor herbicide spraying, Removal of invasive plants
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions aerial sureys
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