Case study:Wansbeck 100: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|Name=Wansbeck | |Name=Wansbeck | ||
|WFD water body code=GB103022076960 | |||
|WFD water body name=Wansbeck from Source to Ray Burn | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |Heavily modified water body=No | ||
|Protected species present=No | |Protected species present=No |
Revision as of 15:04, 23 October 2015
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
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
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
|