Case study:Washwalk Wetland: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
|Picture description=December 2023, photo of slow moving water during flash flooding
|Picture description=December 2023, photo of slow moving water during flash flooding
|Project summary=Rewetting a 906m stretch of floodplain on the River Gara by felling trees into the river. Started in 2022, this project aims to slow water flow, enhance habitats, and improve floodplain resilience.
|Project summary=Rewetting a 906m stretch of floodplain on the River Gara by felling trees into the river. Started in 2022, this project aims to slow water flow, enhance habitats, and improve floodplain resilience.
|Monitoring surveys and results=1. Baseline Surveys:
Objective: Establish pre-restoration conditions of the River Gara, providing a reference point for future comparisons.
Methods:
Hydrological Monitoring: Measurement of river flow rates, water levels, and sediment transport.
Water Quality Sampling: Analysis of nutrient levels, pollutants (e.g., nitrates, phosphates, heavy metals), and pH.
Biological Surveys: Surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish populations, and riparian vegetation to assess biodiversity and habitat quality.
Habitat Assessment: Evaluation of physical features such as channel morphology, bank stability, and the presence of instream habitats (e.g., riffles, pools).
Key Findings:
Flow regime heavily altered due to upstream water abstraction.
Elevated nutrient levels (particularly nitrates and phosphates) detected, likely from agricultural runoff.
Decline in fish populations, with limited spawning habitat available due to sedimentation and channel modifications.
Reduced riparian vegetation cover, leading to increased bank erosion and poor habitat diversity.
2. Post-Restoration Monitoring (Ongoing):
Objective: Assess the effectiveness of restoration interventions and track improvements over time.
Methods:
Repeat Hydrological Surveys: Monitoring of flow dynamics post-intervention (e.g., flow increases, changes in sediment transport).
Water Quality Improvements: Testing for reductions in nutrient and pollutant levels after riparian planting and buffer zone creation.
Fish and Invertebrate Surveys: Tracking population recovery and habitat use.
Vegetation Surveys: Assessing recovery of native riparian plants and reduction in invasive species.
Preliminary Results:
Flow Regime: Initial observations suggest a slight improvement in flow variability after partial reconnection with the floodplain.
Water Quality: Early results indicate a decrease in nitrate concentrations due to riparian buffer zone restoration.
Biodiversity: Increased macroinvertebrate diversity noted, with new riffle and pool habitats attracting key indicator species.
Riparian Zone: Enhanced vegetation cover is stabilizing riverbanks, reducing sediment input, and improving shading for aquatic species.
3. Long-Term Ecological Impact Surveys:
Objective: Evaluate the ecological outcomes over a longer period (3–5 years post-restoration).
Focus Areas:
Resilience of fish populations (spawning success, recruitment).
Overall biodiversity improvement, including aquatic plants and wildlife.
Sustainability of restored hydromorphological processes.
Expected Results: Ongoing habitat improvements, increased connectivity for migratory species, and further reductions in pollutants as riparian zones mature.
|Lessons learn=1. Adding Woody Debris Accelerates Improvement: A key lesson from this project is that the introduction of woody debris quickly enhances river health. By creating varied flow patterns and improving habitat complexity, the addition of wood supports biodiversity, stabilizes banks, and promotes sediment deposition, leading to rapid ecological benefits.
2. Simplicity Can Be Effective: Simple, low-cost interventions such as strategically placing wood in the river can lead to significant improvements in a short time, proving that complex or expensive solutions aren't always necessary to achieve positive outcomes.
3. Continuous Monitoring Ensures Success: Regular monitoring has proven essential for observing changes and adjusting restoration efforts. This helps ensure that the interventions are working as intended and provides data to support ongoing improvement.
|Project title=Washwalk Wetland
|Project title=Washwalk Wetland
}}
}}

Revision as of 16:26, 20 October 2024


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status In progress
Project web site
Themes Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Social benefits, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Patrick
Main contact surname Hadow
Main contact user ID User:Stabilize7399
Contact organisation
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects 		No
December 2023, photo of slow moving water during flash flooding

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Rewetting a 906m stretch of floodplain on the River Gara by felling trees into the river. Started in 2022, this project aims to slow water flow, enhance habitats, and improve floodplain resilience.

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.

Reasons for river restoration

Edit reasons for restoration
Mitigation of a pressure Invasive species, Agricultural Runoff and Pollution, Abstraction, Flood Protection Infrastructure
Hydromorphology Connection to groundwaters, Substrate conditions, Flow velocities, Continuity for organisms
Biology Fish, Invertebrates: Diversity, Fish: Abundance
Physico-chemical Nutrient concentrations
Other reasons for the project Landscape enhancement, Bank erosion, Recreation


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: 50° 20' 29.04" N, 3° 41' 51.18" W
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


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




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


Retrieved from "https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Washwalk_Wetland&oldid=50721"