Case study:River Bure: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Case study status |Approval status=Draft }} {{Location |Location=52.82405698768668, 1.2064790725708007 }} {{Project overview |Project title=River Bure |Status=Complete |The...")
 
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
}}
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Project title=River Bure
|Status=Complete
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
|Country=England
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Nick
|Main contact forename=Nick
|Main contact surname=Elbourne  
|Main contact surname=Elbourne
|Contact organisation=River Restoration Centre
|Contact organisation=River Restoration Centre
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=The National Trust in conjunction with the Blickling fishing club undertook a two-phase restoration project (in 2008 and 2010) at the River Bure, Norfolk. This involved installation of Large Woody Debris (LWD) with the overall aim of improving in-channel and marginal habitats by re-establishing natural river processes interrupted by past management activities.
The stretch of the Bure flowing through the Blickling Estate had been severely over-widened due to historic dredging to increase channel and holding capacity for several mills in the area. Within the 7 km of river channel that border the Blickling Estate there are four mills and several bypassed meanders. Siltation added to the degraded state of the river, which was heavily wooded.
Felling trees to create in-channel LWD was identified as a good way to increase habitat and restore natural processes to the Bure (historically fallen trees had been removed by the Environment Agency and local fishing club).
Riparian habitats were of high quality, comprising ancient woodland and alder and willow carr, therefore restoration works were restricted to options which would have a low impact on the site and surrounding habitats i.e. use of heavy machinery was not advised.
Objectives were:
- To improve river habitat by re-instating woody debris
- To increase the stock of wild brown trout
- To enhance biodiversity and conservation value of the reach
The project was completed in two phases. Phase 1 work was completed in November 2008 over three to four weeks. Work had to be cheap as there was no allocated budget for the project, and non-technical as access to the site was limited. Works were therefore based on intuition and what was deemed to be aesthetically “right” for the location.
Trees were felled into the channel with some minor modifications made to their in-stream position to comply with EA by-laws and fishing requirements. Work was carried out by volunteers using chainsaws, a hand winch and plastic boat. This phase increased fish catch numbers (based on Blickling fishing club records).
Phase 2 of the project was completed in November 2010, encompassing a baseline survey and monitoring. In this phase the introduction of LWD was more adventurous. Consequently, the results of phase 2 were even more dramatic than phase 1. Effects of restoration appeared to be proportional to the amount of LWD introduced into the river.   
The approach at both stages involved adhering to the following:
-selection of trees which were already likely to fall into the channel
-fell them so they remained attached to the root plate
-allow branches to penetrate the river bed to secure the tree
-only if necessary use a stake to prevent movement
-modify the position if necessary to maintain other channel functions e.g. fishing points
-felling more than one tree at each location allows a web of branches and twigs to form, diversifying habitats and anchoring the “structure”
Since 2010 the river has continued to become more diverse in terms of the range of habitats. Sediment trapped by LWD has increase vegetation has served to further increase the range of habitats both submerged and emergent.  The redistribution of sediments has resulted in a naturally developing channel. Areas of faster flows have begun to clean gravels, with areas of reduced flow velocity causing deposition.
An important consequence of the project has been identified by the National Trust as an increasing acceptance of naturally occurring LWD as part of sustainable river management and restoration.
The River Restoration Centre would like to thank Dave Brady from The National Trust for providing the case study content and photographs.
}}
}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}

Revision as of 16:45, 2 January 2013

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: 52° 49' 26.61" N, 1° 12' 23.32" 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
Country England
Main contact forename Nick
Main contact surname Elbourne
Main contact user ID
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
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The National Trust in conjunction with the Blickling fishing club undertook a two-phase restoration project (in 2008 and 2010) at the River Bure, Norfolk. This involved installation of Large Woody Debris (LWD) with the overall aim of improving in-channel and marginal habitats by re-establishing natural river processes interrupted by past management activities.

The stretch of the Bure flowing through the Blickling Estate had been severely over-widened due to historic dredging to increase channel and holding capacity for several mills in the area. Within the 7 km of river channel that border the Blickling Estate there are four mills and several bypassed meanders. Siltation added to the degraded state of the river, which was heavily wooded.

Felling trees to create in-channel LWD was identified as a good way to increase habitat and restore natural processes to the Bure (historically fallen trees had been removed by the Environment Agency and local fishing club). Riparian habitats were of high quality, comprising ancient woodland and alder and willow carr, therefore restoration works were restricted to options which would have a low impact on the site and surrounding habitats i.e. use of heavy machinery was not advised.

Objectives were: - To improve river habitat by re-instating woody debris - To increase the stock of wild brown trout - To enhance biodiversity and conservation value of the reach

The project was completed in two phases. Phase 1 work was completed in November 2008 over three to four weeks. Work had to be cheap as there was no allocated budget for the project, and non-technical as access to the site was limited. Works were therefore based on intuition and what was deemed to be aesthetically “right” for the location. Trees were felled into the channel with some minor modifications made to their in-stream position to comply with EA by-laws and fishing requirements. Work was carried out by volunteers using chainsaws, a hand winch and plastic boat. This phase increased fish catch numbers (based on Blickling fishing club records).

Phase 2 of the project was completed in November 2010, encompassing a baseline survey and monitoring. In this phase the introduction of LWD was more adventurous. Consequently, the results of phase 2 were even more dramatic than phase 1. Effects of restoration appeared to be proportional to the amount of LWD introduced into the river.

The approach at both stages involved adhering to the following: -selection of trees which were already likely to fall into the channel -fell them so they remained attached to the root plate -allow branches to penetrate the river bed to secure the tree -only if necessary use a stake to prevent movement -modify the position if necessary to maintain other channel functions e.g. fishing points -felling more than one tree at each location allows a web of branches and twigs to form, diversifying habitats and anchoring the “structure”

Since 2010 the river has continued to become more diverse in terms of the range of habitats. Sediment trapped by LWD has increase vegetation has served to further increase the range of habitats both submerged and emergent. The redistribution of sediments has resulted in a naturally developing channel. Areas of faster flows have begun to clean gravels, with areas of reduced flow velocity causing deposition.

An important consequence of the project has been identified by the National Trust as an increasing acceptance of naturally occurring LWD as part of sustainable river management and restoration. The River Restoration Centre would like to thank Dave Brady from The National Trust for providing the case study content and photographs.

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



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