Case study:Wansbeck 100: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Wansbeck 100 | |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Wansbeck 100 | ||
|Multi-site=Yes | |Multi-site=Yes | ||
|Project summary=The Wansbeck and many of its tributaries are currently viewed as ‘failing’ under the requirements of the Water Framework | |Project summary=The Wansbeck and many of its tributaries are currently viewed as ‘failing’ under the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The main reason for failure is numbers of fish. | ||
The main issue behind this appears to be the amount of silt, sediment and nutrients that are washed into the rivers and streams from farmland and forests. Other factors include weirs that hold up fish | The main issue behind this appears to be the amount of silt, sediment and nutrients that are washed into the rivers and streams from farmland and forests. Other factors include weirs that hold up fish migration, and a lack of bank-side and in-stream habitat. | ||
This ambitious community project aims to help address these issues, and improve the quality, WFD status and local | This ambitious community project aims to help address these issues, and improve the quality, WFD status and local enjoyment of 100km of river and stream. | ||
The rivers and streams that are part of the project include:The Upper Wansbeck; The Font; The Hartburn; The Delf Burn; The Ray Burn. | The rivers and streams that are part of the project include:The Upper Wansbeck; The Font; The Hartburn; The Delf Burn; The Ray Burn. | ||
The project will work closely with schools and communities to help renew local interest and ‘ownership’ of the rivers in this rural part of Northumberland. | The project will work closely with schools and communities to help renew local interest and ‘ownership’ of the rivers in this rural part of Northumberland. | ||
Outputs will include: improvements to fish passage; lengths of fenced buffer strip to filter out sediments; new and improved wetland features to settle out sediment and nutrients; improvements to vehicle crossings; new native woodland; work with farmers and land managers to reduce run-off in ways that reduce their costs; engagement and communications activity with schools, communities and angling clubs | Outputs will include: improvements to fish passage; lengths of fenced buffer strip to filter out sediments; new and improved wetland features to settle out sediment and nutrients; improvements to vehicle crossings; new native woodland; work with farmers and land managers to reduce run-off in ways that reduce their costs; engagement and communications activity with schools, communities and angling clubs. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Case study subcatchment}} | {{Case study subcatchment}} |
Revision as of 12:11, 3 July 2013
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | In progress |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Peter |
Main contact surname | Kerr |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | National Trust, Environment Agency, Community Foundation |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
Wansbeck 100 |
Project summary
The Wansbeck and many of its tributaries are currently viewed as ‘failing’ under the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The main reason for failure is numbers of fish.
The main issue behind this appears to be the amount of silt, sediment and nutrients that are washed into the rivers and streams from farmland and forests. Other factors include weirs that hold up fish migration, and a lack of bank-side and in-stream habitat.
This ambitious community project aims to help address these issues, and improve the quality, WFD status and local enjoyment of 100km of river and stream.
The rivers and streams that are part of the project include:The Upper Wansbeck; The Font; The Hartburn; The Delf Burn; The Ray Burn.
The project will work closely with schools and communities to help renew local interest and ‘ownership’ of the rivers in this rural part of Northumberland.
Outputs will include: improvements to fish passage; lengths of fenced buffer strip to filter out sediments; new and improved wetland features to settle out sediment and nutrients; improvements to vehicle crossings; new native woodland; work with farmers and land managers to reduce run-off in ways that reduce their costs; engagement and communications activity with schools, communities and angling clubs.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Name | Wansbeck |
---|---|
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 | |
Protected species present | No |
Invasive species present | No |
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
Reach length directly affected (m) | |
---|---|
Project started | |
Works started | |
Works completed | |
Project completed | |
Total cost category | 100 - 500 k€ |
Total cost (k€) | 400400 k€ <br />400,000 € <br /> |
Benefit to cost ratio | |
Funding sources | Catchment Restoration Funds |
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
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | Fenced off riverbank |
Floodplain / River corridor | Creation of wet woodland |
Planform / Channel pattern | |
Other | |
Non-structural measures
| |
Management interventions | |
Social measures (incl. engagement) | Work with schools and communities |
Other | Work with farmers and land managers |
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