Case study:River Monnow (Going Native): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Project web site url=www.monnow.org/ | |Project web site url=www.monnow.org/ | ||
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity | |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity | ||
|Country=England | |Country=England, Wales | ||
|Main contact forename=nick | |Main contact forename=nick | ||
|Main contact surname=elbourne | |Main contact surname=elbourne |
Revision as of 12:16, 18 May 2013
Project overview
Status | In progress |
---|---|
Project web site | http://www.monnow.org/ |
Themes | Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | England, Wales |
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 |
Project summary
The River catchment was dominated by invasive non-native species, specifically American mink and Himalayan Balsam, as well as Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed. Their presence in the catchment was having a significant effect not only on ecology, but also access for recreational activities such as walking and fishing.
Project objectives included:
• The identification of bankside areas affected by invasive non-native species
• Achieve catchment wide eradication of Himalayan Balsam (HB), Japanese Knotweed (JK) and Giant Hogweed (GHW)
• Maintain mink free status of the catchment (developed by the game and wildlife conservation trust) to monitor and control mink and reintroduce water voles to the River Dore
• Educate children, local community and other catchments about invasive non-native species and the River Monnow project
All sites with GHW and JK were mapped in 2007, as well as an estimation of the upper extent of HB sites on tributaries. Volunteers were used to spray and hand pulled large areas of HB which was repeated 3 or 4 times before the first frost. All HB sites were revisited several times to ensure no plants went to seed, and the control area was extended, again with the use of volunteers. After year 3 of treatments HB had been eradicated. This process of HB eradication was rolled out catchment wide using paid contractors, with follow up by volunteers. By Autumn 2012 70km of previously effected area will have had the initial treatment phase, with 25km of the catchment now HB free. GNW and JK was sprayed in the spring and treated in the autumn annually, however these were not widespread in the catchment. Costs for the last three years of work amount to £60,000 with 4,600 paid-for man hours and 1,200 voluntary hours. This equates to a figure so far of £822 per kilometre with an effort of 87 man hours per kilometre. Two more years of work are estimated (mainly hand-pulling and largely by volunteers), which would add a further 20% to those figures. The project has been funded by Environment Agency, Natural England and Tidy Towns Wales. Generous private donations from fishery owners and fund-raising by the association has added to the project budget. Mink have been monitored by volunteers, with captured numbers reducing to just 5 in 2007. Volunteers also annually monitor areas where water voles have been reintroduced, numbers and range are increasing. Two schools have been introduced to “the joys of Mayfly in the classroom”, to introduce children to the importance of healthy rivers and the connection between fishing and conservation. Produced and erected 100 signs on footpaths identifying the problem of HB. By 2014 the project aims to have eradicated HB from the catchment. Natural bankside vegetation is already re-established in many areas, significantly reducing erosion and sediment release.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)
Site
Name | River Monnow, Herefordshire and Monmouthshire |
---|---|
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 | water vole (habitat for protectes species) |
Protected species present | Yes |
Invasive species present | Yes |
Species of interest | invasive non-native species: American mink, Himalayan Balsam, Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed |
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) | 25,00025,000 m <br />25 km <br />2,500,000 cm <br /> |
---|---|
Project started | 2007 |
Works started | |
Works completed | |
Project completed | 2014/01/01 |
Total cost category | 50 - 100 k€ |
Total cost (k€) | |
Benefit to cost ratio | |
Funding sources | Environment Agency, Natural England, Tidy Towns Wales, Monnow Rivers Association fundraising, private donations |
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 |
Supplementary funding information
Costs for the last three years of work (2010 to 2013) amount to £60,000 with 4,600 paid-for man hours and 1,200 voluntary hours. This equates to a figure so far of £822 per kilometre with an effort of 87 man hours per kilometre. Two more years of work are estimated (mainly hand-pulling and largely by volunteers), which would add a further 20% to those figures.
Reasons for river restoration
Mitigation of a pressure | invasive non-native species |
---|---|
Hydromorphology | |
Biology | |
Physico-chemical | |
Other reasons for the project |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | removal of invasive non-native species (bankside vegetation) |
Floodplain / River corridor | |
Planform / Channel pattern | |
Other | |
Non-structural measures
| |
Management interventions | |
Social measures (incl. engagement) | Two schools have been introduced to “the joys of Mayfly in the classroom”, and erected 100 signs on footpaths identifying the problem of Himalayan Balsam |
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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information