Case study:Lullingstone Castle: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 49: Line 49:


}}
}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Thames
}}
{{Site}}
{{Site}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}

Revision as of 13:18, 28 November 2012

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: 51° 21' 32.29" N, 0° 12' 0.39" E
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, Hydromorphology
Country England
Main contact forename Nick
Main contact surname Elbourne
Main contact user ID User:NickRRC
Contact organisation River Restoration Centre
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Site locations

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The River Darent is a tributary of the River Thames. This groundwater fed chalk river exhibits typical attributes including clear water, abundant macrophytes, low banks and reasonably stable flows. The river has suffered from over abstraction as well as being heavily modified for historical agricultural irrigation and to provide power for milling. The rivers course through a number of large lakes fragment habitats and put pressure on water quality and quantity. The North West Kent Countryside Partnership and King Fisher Angling and Preservation Society carried out a project in 2010/2011 where the Darent runs through the grounds of Lullingstone Castle. The Wild Trout Trust undertook an advisory visit in July 2009 to identify the project area which exhibited historical straightening, slow flows and high water temperatures due to its location just downstream of the 15ha on-line lake. Heavy siltation in the channel and dense wooded banks also contributed to an overall poor habitat for fish (particularly native Brown Trout). Objectives included: • Improve in stream habitat for juvenile and adult fish as well as provision of spawning habitats by the creation of areas of clean loose gravels and increased flow rates

• Increased flow levels to ensure a healthy flow to maintain habitats even during summer low flows

• Increase marginal habitats by clearing trees and scrub and planting new marginal aquatic plants to support invertebrate, wildfowl and water vole populations

• Narrowing and meandering of the channel using large woody debris and faggots

• Increase fishing opportunities by improving condition of the river

The Environment Agency initiated the project, with the North West Kent Countryside Partnership engaging with local fishing clubs who had initially developed and planned the project to provide advice and support work delivery. This partnership ensured the ability to deliver a wide range of objectives. Project delivery was between January and April 2011 (to correspond with the closed fishing season) by KAPS and NWKCP staff and volunteers. The Environment Agency funded the £3,640 cost including materials and NWKCP officer time. The reach was divided into sections A-F a brief review of work completed is:

A- Installation of deflector

B- Channel narrowing, faggoting to encourage new bank development and increase marginal habitat

C- Faggot barrier to block inlet, installation of coir rolls between faggot bundles to create vegetation

D- Block off artificial channels by installing faggots, planting area using coir pallets

E- Installation of large woody debris and coir rolls to narrow channel

F- Group deflectors at varying lengths, pack faggot bundles between deflectors to create marginal habitats

These works have all been successful, having had a noticeable difference on fishing quality (reports of increased catch rates). A habitat has now been created which has a variety of habitats beneficial to the fish population. The KAPS and NWKCP are keen to continue works and have begun identification of possible sites for the future.

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.

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment


Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin thames

Subcatchment

River name Thames (Kemble to Waterhay Bridge)
Area category
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology
Ecoregion
Dominant land cover
Waterbody ID



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



Image gallery



Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information