Case study:Dysart Park, Grantham Habitat Improvement: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
{{Case study status
|Approval status=Draft
|Approval status=Approved
}}
}}
{{Location
{{Location
Line 13: Line 13:
|Contact organisation=East Mercia Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation=East Mercia Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation url=Environment Agency
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Upper Witham Restoration
|Name of parent multi-site project=Upper Witham Restoration
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Dysart established.jpg
|Project picture=Dysart established.jpg
Line 23: Line 22:


This work reduced the need for EA maintenance of the trees in this section of river.
This work reduced the need for EA maintenance of the trees in this section of river.
|Monitoring surveys and results=Visual inspections and photographs of changes. It is clear that even with a resistant clay bed some of the narrowing structures have created scour pool formation.
|Lessons learn=Plan ahead where native Crayfish could be impacted by a project. Ensure you have the necessary permissions to survey for them and where necessary relocate from the project site.
|Lessons learn=Plan ahead where native Crayfish could be impacted by a project. Ensure you have the necessary permissions to survey for them and where necessary relocate from the project site.


Line 87: Line 87:
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=Dysart Park Grantham Restoration Case Study.pdf
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references header}}

Latest revision as of 12:13, 27 February 2024

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 52° 54' 10.45" N, 0° 37' 44.31" 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 Complete
Project web site
Themes Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Gail
Main contact surname Hutchinson
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation East Mercia Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site http://Environment%20Agency
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Case_study:Upper Witham Restoration

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project after establishment and naturalisation.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The Upper Witham is the ground water fed headwaters of the Witham supporting important species including Native Crayfish and Brown Trout. Historic changes to the river for milling and land drainage have however degraded habitat especially in urban areas such as Grantham.

The project aimed to restore habitat in an over widened, shaded section of river running alongside a public park in the town. This was done by hinging trees to form berms which helped to narrow the channel and provide lighter. As well as benefiting the habitat, this made the river more visible to near-by residents and park users.

This work reduced the need for EA maintenance of the trees in this section of river.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Visual inspections and photographs of changes. It is clear that even with a resistant clay bed some of the narrowing structures have created scour pool formation.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Plan ahead where native Crayfish could be impacted by a project. Ensure you have the necessary permissions to survey for them and where necessary relocate from the project site.

This project also planned to install a rock ramp on a weir downstream, but this could not be taken forward due to site access during Covid.


Image gallery


Site before works, Summer 2020. Very shaded and with a silt dominated, over widened
Berm creation using hinged trees, Autumn 2020.
Deep Scour pool between narrowing berms Winter 2022.
Clean gravels and aquatic vegetation forming next to berm. Winter 2022.
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Anglian
River basin Witham

Subcatchment

River name Upper Witham
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 4646 m <br />0.046 km <br />4,600 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Arable and Horticulture
Waterbody ID GB105030056760



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Aubourn Rock Ramp and Habitat Works, Belton Floodplain Reconnection and River Restoration, Grantham Blue Green - Urban Reach, Little Ponton, Manthorpe Floodplain Reconnection, Papermill Weir Section in-channel restoration, River Witham Great Ponton, Stainby Road, Colsterworth, Syston and Barkston Restoration, Upper Cringle Floodplain Restoration Project... further results


Site

Name Dysart Park, Grantham Habitat Restoration
WFD water body codes GB105030056780
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Witham - confluence of Cringle Brook to confluence Brant
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) 100100 m <br />0.1 km <br />10,000 cm <br />
Project started 01/09/2020
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category 10 - 50 k€
Total cost (k€) 1638016,380 k€ <br />16,380,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources EA, Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)

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 Flood Risk
Hydromorphology
Biology Fish
Physico-chemical Phosphate
Other reasons for the project Improving Local Park


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Day lighting and addition of woody material to form narrowing berms
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Volunteer work parties using the local community.
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