Case study:Gunville Phase I: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Case study status |Approval status=Draft }} {{Location |Location=51.22068774866149, -1.7809653282165527 }} {{Project overview |Project title=Gunville Phase I |Status=Complet...")
 
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
}}
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Project title=Gunville Phase I
|Status=Complete
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
Line 15: Line 14:
|Contact organisation=Wiltshire Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation=Wiltshire Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wiltshirewildlife.org
|Contact organisation url=www.wiltshirewildlife.org
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency, Natural England, Wessex Water, Wiltshire Fishery Association,
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Strategic Framework for Restoration of the River Avon (SFfRRA)
|Multi-site=Yes
|Multi-site=Yes
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Strategic Framework for Restoration of the River Avon (SFfRRA)
|Project picture=P6080078.JPG
|Picture description=Gunville Phase I
|Project summary=Commissioned by Wiltshire Wildlife Trust and funded through a successful Catchment Restoration Fund bid, Cain Bioengineering submitted a very professional interpretation for the 750m stretch of river, incorporating a mixture of geotextile and earth back-fill berms, brushwood sediment traps, gravel riffles, large woody debris and live tree hinging. The general theme of the works was remeandering, channel narrowing and bank regrading. The creation of off-line ponds provided fill for the geotextile berms and created valuable riparian habitat. Due to the nature of the site and the partners involved (being part of the MoD training estate, with fishing rights given to theServicesDry Fly Fishing Association (SDFFA)), stakeholder consultation was crucial in the on-going development of the project. As a result of this consultation and mitigation for Water vole (Arvicola terrestris), designs had to be adapted several times during the project, leading to a bespoke, dynamic restoration which should be readily able to withstand the variety of pressures faced by the river.
|Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring consists of invertebrate surveys, electro-fish surveys and fixed-point photography.  Data was collected throughout 2013 and 2014 through volunteer effort.  Results have yet to be analysed.
|Lessons learn=Future projects should incorporate time for delays such as flooding, water vole mitigation and other
potential difficulties.
Despite not being public land, improved communications with local residents would have made
progress much smoother.
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery}}

Revision as of 09:42, 17 February 2016

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 13' 14.48" N, 1° 46' 51.48" W
Loading map...
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 Complete
Project web site
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
Country England
Main contact forename Martijn
Main contact surname Antheunisse
Main contact user ID User:Martijnantheunisse
Contact organisation Wiltshire Wildlife Trust
Contact organisation web site http://www.wiltshirewildlife.org
Partner organisations Environment Agency, Natural England, Wessex Water, Wiltshire Fishery Association
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
Gunville Phase I

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Commissioned by Wiltshire Wildlife Trust and funded through a successful Catchment Restoration Fund bid, Cain Bioengineering submitted a very professional interpretation for the 750m stretch of river, incorporating a mixture of geotextile and earth back-fill berms, brushwood sediment traps, gravel riffles, large woody debris and live tree hinging. The general theme of the works was remeandering, channel narrowing and bank regrading. The creation of off-line ponds provided fill for the geotextile berms and created valuable riparian habitat. Due to the nature of the site and the partners involved (being part of the MoD training estate, with fishing rights given to theServicesDry Fly Fishing Association (SDFFA)), stakeholder consultation was crucial in the on-going development of the project. As a result of this consultation and mitigation for Water vole (Arvicola terrestris), designs had to be adapted several times during the project, leading to a bespoke, dynamic restoration which should be readily able to withstand the variety of pressures faced by the river.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Monitoring consists of invertebrate surveys, electro-fish surveys and fixed-point photography. Data was collected throughout 2013 and 2014 through volunteer effort. Results have yet to be analysed.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Future projects should incorporate time for delays such as flooding, water vole mitigation and other potential difficulties. Despite not being public land, improved communications with local residents would have made progress much smoother.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
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
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

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

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
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



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information