Case study:River Slea Rehabilitation

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: none specified

Edit location

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	Complete
Project web site
Themes	Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban
Country	England
Main contact forename	Marie
Main contact surname	Taylor
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	Lincolnshire Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site	http://www.lincsrivers.org.uk/
Partner organisations	Wild Trout Trust
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects	No

Section 2 following faggot installation to create berms with the help of volunteers

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.

The River Slea is an 18 mile long tributary of the River Witham, Lincolnshire. The River Slea is groundwater fed from Lincolnshire limestone aquifer and the flow depends on the on groundwater levels. Historically the River Slea flowed all year round. In the early 60s the flow of the river began to slow and ceased in 1962. This was due to a number of reasons such as over abstraction, increase in population and changes in weather cycles. After a public campaign in 1992, a pump was installed by the Environment Agency which delivers groundwater to the river at times of no flow. The Lincolnshire Rivers Trust (LRT) commissioned Clear Environmental to deliver the Sleaford Urban Opportunities Study, which was funded by Natural England. This study highlighted how the river would benefit from various rehabilitation techniques to enable wildlife to be more resilient during low flow periods and also contribute towards WFD objectives. With the help of the Wild Trout Trust, three sections of river were identified where restoration could be completed, this covered approximately 1.2km of river. Unfortunately, due to site constraints, work could only be completed on two sections (sections one and two). There were three phases to the works completed, these are detailed below;

Phase 1: Using an excavator, a low flow channel was created in section one and pools were created in section two. River bed material removed was used to create berms and meanders within the existing channel.

Phase 2: Brushwood bundles were installed, to construct berms which created pinch points, narrowing the channel to speed up the flow and maintain the pools created. This part of the project was made possible with the help of volunteers.

Phase 3: Planting of vegetation using coir matting and plug plants, to increase the rate of colonisation of berms and make them appear more natural.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.

In September 2015, section one of the river was completely dry, but following the creation of the low flow channel, in September 2016 there was still 1ft of water retained within that section.

Before the works were completed, a water vole survey carried out in 2015 only found old unused burrows, with no signs of water voles. In 2016 another water vole survey was carried out, detecting 12 feeding stations and four latrines.

In 2015 section two was completely uniform with no pools or any habitat features. Following the work, 22 berms were constructed providing cover for fish and providing deeper areas that would help maintain the depth during low flow periods. Planting was successful, and in time, the vegetation will grow and create a natural meandering flow.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.

Work could not be carried out in section 3 due to the firmness of the riverbed. It is reccomended in the future that the firmness of the riverbed should be tested to ensure habitat improvement works can be carried out. Install coir matting vegetation at the same time as installing brushwood, we had to rely on individual plug plants when planting. Although plugs are cheaper than matting.

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

Catchment and subcatchment Select a catchment/subcatchment Site Edit 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 Edit 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 Edit reasons for restoration Mitigation of a pressure Hydromorphology Biology Physico-chemical Other reasons for the project Measures Edit 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 Edit Hydromorphological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Biological quality elements Edit biological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Physico-chemical quality elements Edit 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 Edit Other responses Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Monitoring documents Upload monitoring documents Additional documents and videos Upload additional documents Additional links and references Edit links and references Link Description Supplementary Information Edit Supplementary Information