Case study:Syston and Barkston Restoration: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 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 12: Line 12:
|Main contact surname=Parr
|Main contact surname=Parr
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation url=Environement Agency
|Contact organisation url=www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
|Partner organisations=Wild Trout Trust; Grantham Angling Association Fly Fishing Section
|Partner organisations=Wild Trout Trust; Grantham Angling Association Fly Fishing Section
|Name of parent multi-site project=Upper Witham Restoration
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Upper Witham Restoration
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Barkston Syston 1.png
|Project picture=Barkston Syston 1.png
|Picture description=Channel narrowing and flow deflectors
|Picture description=Channel narrowing and flow deflectors
|Project summary=The habitat in the Barkston Reach was also poor due to the effects of straightening, dredging and impoundment. Siltation of the over-wide riffles and the lack of cover for juvenile and adult fish were identified as key issues and addressing these was the main focus of the enhancement work.
|Project summary=The habitat in the Barkston Reach was also poor due to the effects of straightening, dredging and impoundment. Siltation of the over-wide riffles and the lack of cover for juvenile and adult fish were identified as key issues and addressing these was the main focus of the enhancement work.
Project Objectives
Project Objectives
*To modify the bed structure and improve in-stream habitats for fish and invertebrates, including native white-clawed crayfish.
*To modify the bed structure and improve in-stream habitats for fish and invertebrates, including native white-clawed crayfish.

Latest revision as of 12:53, 26 February 2024

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 52° 58' 37.52" N, 0° 38' 5.66" 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 Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Matt
Main contact surname Parr
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations Wild Trout Trust; Grantham Angling Association Fly Fishing Section
Parent multi-site project

Case_study:Upper Witham Restoration

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Channel narrowing and flow deflectors

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The habitat in the Barkston Reach was also poor due to the effects of straightening, dredging and impoundment. Siltation of the over-wide riffles and the lack of cover for juvenile and adult fish were identified as key issues and addressing these was the main focus of the enhancement work. Project Objectives

  • To modify the bed structure and improve in-stream habitats for fish and invertebrates, including native white-clawed crayfish.
  • To stabilise eroding riverbanks and reduce fine sediment inputs caused by fluvial processes.
  • Trap mobile fine sediments from agricultural and other sources.

The enhancement works were planned in two phases and designed by Environment Agency staff in consultation with Grantham Angling Association Fly Fishing Section (GAAFFS) and the riparian landowners.

The Enhancement Schemes The principal function of the works is to create sections of 2-stage channel where the river has been widened and deepened. Here a variety of channel narrowing structures have been installed just above the normal water level to create a low flow channel, but are readily over-topped as the water level rises to ensure that the capacity of the channel is not compromised. Techniques include brushwood mattresses and enclosures, log flow deflectors and vanes and tree management.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


A variety of monitoring techniques have been employed to assess the impacts of the works. These include fixed point photography, along with regular visual inspections to monitor the integrity and performance of the in-stream structures. An annual programme of fine sediment and gravel sampling to monitor changes in the bed substrate has been established and native crayfish surveys will be repeated on a 2 years cycle. Annual fish surveys are already undertaken and show that the brown trout stocks are currently healthy.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


Tree works
Hinged tree
Brushwood mattress
Narrowing works
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, Dysart Park, Grantham Habitat Improvement, Grantham Blue Green - Urban Reach, Little Ponton, Manthorpe Floodplain Reconnection, Papermill Weir Section in-channel restoration, River Witham Great Ponton, Stainby Road, Colsterworth, Upper Cringle Floodplain Restoration Project... further results


Site

Name Syston and Barkston
WFD water body codes GB105030056780
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Witham Confluence Cringle Brook to Confluence Brant
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present No
Species of interest Native Crayfish and Brown Trout
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) 2370023,700 m <br />23.7 km <br />2,370,000 cm <br />
Project started 01/09/2014
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category 10 - 50 k€
Total cost (k€) 2100021,000 k€ <br />21,000,000 € <br />
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 Land drainage
Hydromorphology
Biology Fish
Physico-chemical Phosphate
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Tree works including hinging and daylighting, creation of log fronted and faggot mattresses, installation of flow deflectors and vanes.
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