Case study:Whit Beck River Restoration Project

0.00

(0 votes)

To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.

Location: 54° 36' 40.86" N, 3° 18' 43.29" W

Edit location

Loading map...

{"format":"googlemaps3","type":"HYBRID","minzoom":false,"maxzoom":false,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"limit":50,"offset":0,"link":"all","sort":[""],"order":[],"headers":"show","mainlabel":"","intro":"","outro":"","searchlabel":"... further results","default":"","import-annotation":false,"width":"auto","height":"400px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"visitedicon":"","wmsoverlay":false,"zoom":14,"layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview","rotate"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"resizable":false,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"cluster":false,"clustergridsize":60,"clustermaxzoom":20,"clusterzoomonclick":true,"clusteraveragecenter":true,"clusterminsize":2,"imageoverlays":[],"kml":[],"gkml":[""],"searchmarkers":"","fullscreen":false,"scrollwheelzoom":false,"showtitle":false,"hidenamespace":true,"template":"Location map popup","userparam":"","activeicon":"","pagelabel":false,"ajaxcoordproperty":"","ajaxquery":"","locations":[{"text":"\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Title:\u003C/b\u003E Whit Beck River Restoration Project\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECountry:\u003C/b\u003E \u003Ca href=\"/wiki/index.php?title=England\" title=\"England\"\u003EEngland\u003C/a\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Status:\u003C/b\u003E In progress\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThemes:\u003C/b\u003E Land use management - forestry\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E","title":"Whit Beck River Restoration Project","link":"","lat":54.611350475273,"lon":-3.3120258897543,"icon":"/wiki/images/a/af/Red_marker.png"}]}

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	In progress
Project web site
Themes	Environmental flows and water resources, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry
Country	England
Main contact forename	Ian
Main contact surname	Creighton
Main contact user ID	User:Ian Creighton
Contact organisation	West Cumbria Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site	http://westcumbriariverstrust.org
Partner organisations	Environment Agency & Natural England
Parent multi-site project	Case_study:Cumbria River Restoration Strategy
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects	No

Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.

Whit Beck was an ambitious major pilot river restoration project undertaken by West Cumbria Rivers Trust on the behalf of the Environment Agency and Natural England summer 2014. This project was undertaken on Whit Beck, a fast flowing spate tributary of the River Cocker (River Derwent SSSI) in the English Lake District. A 350m section of heavily modified raised river channel was successfully diverted to natural self-sustainable diverse watercourse. The benefits include: • Restoration of natural river processes and associated features (WFD requirement) • Increase in stream length (over 3 fold - 1205m) and channel area (4/5 fold) • Provision of a wider range of habitats enabling fish to carry out the various stages of their life cycles within the new reach • Significantly improvement in floodplain connectivity (flood storage) • Increased in channel storage for gravels • The provision of wildlife corridors (plants, insects and animals) • Increased flood proofing for fish redds • New deciduous woodlands and woodland strips • Enhanced landscape

There were four parties with a vested interest in Whit Beck, two farmers, one tenant and an independent landowner. The scheme was entirely voluntary and all parties had to be on board for the project to get off the ground and succeed. It took two years of planning, investigations and engineering to complete. The total cost over the life of the project is in the vicinity of £700k. Construction was completed by the end of September 2014.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.

Monitoring being undertaken in partnership with Aberystwyth University - preliminary results not be available until late 2015

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.

• Need for guaranteed funding over the life of the project (year to year) – possible delays • The need to be flexible, projects drop out (cost implication) prior to agreements being signed • Need to confirm ownership and vested interest in land (e.g. pension fund / banks / trusts etc) • Valley bottom land is vital for the farming business to succeed in upland areas • Complications caused by multiple landowners – e.g. access provision (cost implications) • Still belief in farming community that the continued maintenance of watercourses are vital • Agricultural schemes can be inflexible and can result in increased costs & complexity • Disturbance payments may be necessary as a form of inducement and to cover period of construction and recovery (short and long term losses) • Need to comply with State Aid rules • Constraints and compromises – they will significantly affect the detailed design (e.g. agreeing route of new channel with landowners, footpath temporary closures / re-routing etc) • Question of liability for new channel once handed back to landowner • Scale of engineering required in new channel design and at point of break out • The need for sufficient mixed bed substrate to enable natural processes to sort and deposit • The necessity for appropriate land licence agreements and construction contracts to protect all parties • Planning permission (National Park) – could be significant delay and is an additional cost • Flood risk (significant flooding in 2005 and 2009) – may require detailed flood risk assessment and associated public consultation (takes time) • Weather conditions during construction (delays) and land area required for de-watering (potentially additional costs and risk) • Commuted sum required for new bridge construction under roads • Demand for public access to site once scheme completed • Need for future monitoring (harder to secure funding for) • Need a means to access funding for any unforeseen future liabilities

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

The heavily modified raised river channel

Line of new channel prior to diversion

During construction of new channel

Box cut channel - Reach 3

Unconsolidated mixed substrate in channel bed

First cut box excavation

Channel following diversion - no geomorphological floods

Channel following geomorphological floods

Reach 3 ptc new channel

Reach 3 new channel

Catchment and subcatchment Select a catchment/subcatchment Edit the catchment and subcatchment details (affects all case studies in this subcatchment) Catchment River basin district North West River basin Derwent (NW) Subcatchment River name Whit Beck Area category 10 - 100 km² Area (km2) Maximum altitude category 500 - 1000 m Maximum altitude (m) 785785 m <br />0.785 km <br />78,500 cm <br /> Dominant geology Siliceous Ecoregion Great Britain Dominant land cover Permanent pasture and woodland strips Waterbody ID GB112075070380 Other case studies in this subcatchment: Cumbria River Restoration Program - Whitbeck restoration project - West Cumbria Site Edit site Name WFD water body codes GB112075070380 WFD (national) typology Mid, Small, Siliceous WFD water body name Whit Beck Pre-project morphology Straightened, Reinforced banks Reference morphology Actively meandering Desired post project morphology Actively meandering, Single channel Heavily modified water body No National/international site designation Local/regional site designations Protected species present No Invasive species present No Species of interest Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Otter (Lutra lutra), Floating water-plantain (Luronium natans), lamprey Dominant hydrology Dominant substrate River corridor land use Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture 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) 0.3km increased to 1.2km"kmincreasedto1.2km" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property. Project started 2013/10/01 Works started 2014/06/16 Works completed 2014/10/03 Project completed Total cost category 500 - 1000 k€ Total cost (k€) Benefit to cost ratio Funding sources Environment Agency & Natural England 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 Heavily engineered high level carrier Biology Limited habitat Physico-chemical Other reasons for the project Re-connect river with floodplain and reduction of substrate delivery to R Cocker Measures Edit Measures Structural measures Bank/bed modifications Constructed new natural channel and imported mixed substrate for the new river to sort Floodplain / River corridor Re-connected to local floodplain and provided a site for gravel deposition to help reduce build up in River Cocker Planform / Channel pattern Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel Other Non-structural measures Management interventions Social measures (incl. engagement) Significant engagement with local community 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 Whitbeck RRS Project Summary Oct 2014.docx Additional links and references Edit links and references Link Description Supplementary Information Edit Supplementary Information