Case study:Washwalk Wetland: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(18 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
|Approval status=Draft
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.3414, -3.69755
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Status=In progress
Line 9: Line 16:
|Project picture=Washwalk Wetland.jpg
|Project picture=Washwalk Wetland.jpg
|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=Beginning in 2022, the Washwalk Wetland project focuses on rewetting a 906m stretch of floodplain along the River Gara. The aim is to enhance the local environment by slowing water flow and reconnecting the channelised river to its floodplain through the felling of trees across and into the channel.
|Monitoring surveys and results=1. Baseline Surveys:
|Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring has been primarily based on personal observations. Family and friends involved in the project have reported positive changes, such as increased water variability and enhanced vegetation growth along the banks. The presence of indicator bird species is used to track the project's success, with hopes of attracting more wader species. So far, kingfishers, mallards, herons, and little egrets have been observed.
 
|Lessons learn=This is an ongoing project still in its early stages.
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
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Image gallery}}
|Specific mitigation=Invasive species, Agricultural Runoff and Pollution, Abstraction, Flood Protection Infrastructure
{{Case study image
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Connection to groundwaters, Substrate conditions, Flow velocities, Continuity for organisms
|File name=20241019 04816.jpg
|Biological quality elements=Fish, Invertebrates: Diversity, Fish: Abundance
}}
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations
{{Case study image
|Other motivation=Landscape enhancement, Bank erosion, Recreation
|File name=20241019 104834.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=20241019 105046.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=20241019 105047.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=20241019 105713.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20241016 091816213.MP.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20241016 092624501.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20241010 090057117.MP.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20241010 091918205.MP.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20241010 092102074.MP.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 20231208 082231.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 20231208 082321.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 20231208 082326.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 20231208 082329.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 20231208 082332.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 20231208 085345.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 20231208 085339.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20231114 112758419.MP.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20221231 141758900.MP.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20221231 141733142.jpg
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=PXL 20230110 110853308.jpg
}}
}}
 
{{Case study image
{{Case study status
|File name=PXL 20230110 110848462.jpg
|Approval status=Draft
}}
}}
{{Location
{{Case study image
|Location=50.3414, -3.69755
|File name=Screenshot 2024-10-21 at 16.33.13.png
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site}}
 
 
 
{{Site
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=Yes
|Invasive species present=Yes
|Species=otter (Lutra lutra), Brown trout (Salmo trutta), Water Vole, kingfisher
}}
 
 
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}
 
{{Motivations
{{Measures}}
|Specific mitigation=Abstraction, Invasive species, Agricultural Runoff and Pollution, Flood Protection Infrastructure
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Connection to groundwaters, Continuity for organisms, Flow velocities, Substrate conditions
|Biological quality elements=Fish, Fish: Abundance, Invertebrates: Diversity
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations
|Other motivation=Bank erosion, Landscape enhancement, Recreation
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Introducing large woody debris
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{End table}}

Latest revision as of 10:41, 10 December 2024

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.



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.


Beginning in 2022, the Washwalk Wetland project focuses on rewetting a 906m stretch of floodplain along the River Gara. The aim is to enhance the local environment by slowing water flow and reconnecting the channelised river to its floodplain through the felling of trees across and into the channel.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Monitoring has been primarily based on personal observations. Family and friends involved in the project have reported positive changes, such as increased water variability and enhanced vegetation growth along the banks. The presence of indicator bird species is used to track the project's success, with hopes of attracting more wader species. So far, kingfishers, mallards, herons, and little egrets have been observed.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


This is an ongoing project still in its early stages.


Image gallery


20241019 04816.jpg
20241019 104834.jpg
20241019 105046.jpg
20241019 105047.jpg
20241019 105713.jpg
PXL 20241016 091816213.MP.jpg
PXL 20241016 092624501.jpg
PXL 20241010 090057117.MP.jpg
PXL 20241010 091918205.MP.jpg
PXL 20241010 092102074.MP.jpg
IMG 20231208 082231.jpg
IMG 20231208 082321.jpg
IMG 20231208 082326.jpg
IMG 20231208 082329.jpg
IMG 20231208 082332.jpg
IMG 20231208 085345.jpg
IMG 20231208 085339.jpg
PXL 20231114 112758419.MP.jpg
PXL 20221231 141758900.MP.jpg
PXL 20221231 141733142.jpg
PXL 20230110 110853308.jpg
PXL 20230110 110848462.jpg
Screenshot 2024-10-21 at 16.33.13.png
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 No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present Yes
Species of interest otter (Lutra lutra), Brown trout (Salmo trutta), Water Vole, kingfisher
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 Abstraction, Invasive species, Agricultural Runoff and Pollution, Flood Protection Infrastructure
Hydromorphology Connection to groundwaters, Continuity for organisms, Flow velocities, Substrate conditions
Biology Fish, Fish: Abundance, Invertebrates: Diversity
Physico-chemical Nutrient concentrations
Other reasons for the project Bank erosion, Landscape enhancement, Recreation


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Introducing large woody debris
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