Case study:Castle Acre Rehabilitation Project: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
|Name=Castle Acre | |Name=Castle Acre | ||
|WFD water body code=GB105033047791 | |WFD water body code=GB105033047791 | ||
|WFD water body name=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain | |||
|Pre-project morphology=Single channel, Impounded, Straightened | |Pre-project morphology=Single channel, Impounded, Straightened | ||
|Reference morphology=Single channel, Pool-riffle, Sinuous | |Reference morphology=Single channel, Pool-riffle, Sinuous |
Revision as of 14:34, 23 October 2015
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Nigel T.H. |
Main contact surname | Holmes |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | River Restoration Centre |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.therrc.co.uk |
Partner organisations | Environment Agency, River Restoration Centre, Natural England |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
Project summary
Work was considerable, affecting about 65% of the channel within a stretch of c300m. Work was undertaken to create greater diversity of habitat by modifying both the long and cross-sections (formation of pools and fast ‘run’ habitat); narrow the channel to improve self-cleansing of the bed and thus reduce sand and silt deposition as well as ‘weed’ growth in the future; improve the landscape quality of the area by replacing the unsightly deflectors with ‘living’ features that would do a more effective job than the deflectors were attempting to do. This section of river has more gradient than the other two sites, and this tended to recede on passing downstream. In habitat terms it primarily suffers badly from historic widening, and attempts to narrow it with deflectors have been generally ineffectual due to the inability of marginal plants to encroach and become firmly established – some deflectors have, however, established some habitat diversity.
The key to being able to carry out the works as desired was the presence of large patches of sedge (Carex acutiformis) and reed (Phalaris arundinacea). In several places the river was narrowed by over 4m simply by transferring large ‘sods’ of sedges; these imports were placed within the inside the existing bank, and will now form the new bank. In the upstream straight section to the first bend, three pools and upstream deflectors were created. As the bed of the newly created two downstream pools of this sequence (photos 2-5) had flinty-gravel present, this was sprinkled on the bed of the narrowed channel upstream to accentuate the improved speed of flow into the pools, and improve the habitat variability within the reach. Material dug from pools to form the upstream shoulders that narrowed the channel were blinded by sedge/reed from the adjacent field. These features were enlarged by further sedge/reed sods.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Nar SSSI project, Narborough Rehabilitation Project, River Nar Castle Acre Common WEG project, River Nar Restoration Project, River Nar, Mileham River Restoration Project, West Lexham Rehabilitation Project
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|