Case study:Tweed Catchment Management Plan: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 67: Line 67:
}}
}}
{{Site}}
{{Site}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2003
}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Measures}}
{{Measures}}

Revision as of 13:27, 2 March 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: 55° 36' 31.02" N, 2° 40' 14.42" 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 In progress
Project web site
Themes Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Water quality
Country England, Scotland
Main contact forename Luke
Main contact surname Comins
Main contact user ID User:Luke Comins
Contact organisation Tweed Forum
Contact organisation web site http://www.tweedforum.org
Partner organisations
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Drainage, habitat loss, agricultural intensification, development, and invasive species are just some of the issues that have taken their toll on the condition of the river over the years. The goal, as set out in the CMP, is ‘to conserve, enhance and, where appropriate restore the total river environment through effective land and resources planning across the Tweed catchment’. For this reason, our work covers source to sea and focuses as much on managing land as the river itself, as rivers are very much a function of the land they flow through. Whilst we have carried out restoration work in all areas of the catchment, we tend to focus our work in sub catchments which have specific issues - such as diffuse pollution, poor morphology, flood risk, degraded habitats etc. Working with local farmers and land managers, we use the following prescriptions, often in combination: • Wetland restoration – restoration of peatlands through ditch blocking, tree removal and stock reduction; creation of ponds and scrapes • Riparian enhancement through fencing and planting. • Channel planform restoration – through re-meandering and placement of large wood debris. • Innovative bank protection using logs, filtrexx and willow, • Access – improving access to the river is a key deliverable • Education – with schools, colleges, local interest groups etc • Training – with Training colleges (Scotland’s Rural College), SNH, RRC, etc on-site best practice • Awareness raising – Agricultural shows, newsletters, press, conferences, talks etc • Research – strong portfolio of co-operative research partnerships delivering innovative solutions and impact across a range of topics, and ecosystem services • Piloting the national Land Use Strategy using an Ecosystem Approach • Science in to Policy – we work with statutory agencies and policy makers to improve the legislation, providing the evidence and test-bed for the acceptability and applicability of new initiatives environmentally, economically and socially. • Partnership building – working with individuals and organisations (NFU, Scottish Land and Estates, Country Landowners Association, EA, SEPA, SNH, NE, etc) to build trust and deliver their agendas for the Tweed, alongside ours. In the last 5 years (not including the large achievements of the Tweed Rivers Heritage Project – see brochure attached) we have restored and enhanced over 60km of river through fencing off and planting, remeandering (2km), installation of over 100 engineered woody debris features; planting of 230ha of riparian woodland; 30 ponds/wetlands; 125ha of raised bog enhanced.

The Tweed Rivers Heritage Project – a complex, multi-disciplinary project aiming to conserve and enhance the natural, built and cultural heritage of the Tweed. This £9 million scheme involved 50 separate projects and over 60 different funding partners – see attached brochure for details. Tweed Invasives Project (ongoing) – a catchment wide project controlling invasive non native plant species across 300 miles of river. Now in its 13th year the project has successfully reduced Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam. Total cost - £1milion to date and includes a great deal of in kind and voluntary support. Detailed botanical monitoring has shown 100% eradication on some of the worst sites that were dense monocultures when we started. Eye Water Diffuse Pollution control project (ongoing) – a targeted project to buffer livestock from water courses on a priority waterbody. Fencing carried out on 11 farms amounting to £100k. The designated bathing water at the mouth of the Eye has gone from a fail to good quality. Eddleston Water Project (ongoing) – a project aiming to restore a channelised river to achieve good ecological status under the WFD and also attenuate flood flows through slowing down flow and increasing storage. To date 1.8km of river have been re-meandered; 66ha of woodland planted; 16,000m of riparian fencing; 54 woody debris dams; 13 wetlands/ponds created; 70,000 trees planted. Whilst we have not had a big flood event to test the flood attenuation impact, there are very clear habitat/biodiversity improvements including aquatic invertebrates, salmon (through increased channel length and diversity; visual redd counts) and designated species such as otter (visual sightings and spraint density). WFD has gone from ‘poor’ to ‘bad’ and will shortly be at ‘moderate’. Bowmont Project (ongoing) – a project aiming to restore the river after a series of devastating floods and rebuild the resilience of the catchment to withstand such events in the future. 50ha of riparian planting, 64 engineered log structures; 365m of innovative bank protection demonstrating many differing techniques. Some stabilisation of gravel already recorded by JHI. Till Wetland Restoration Project – a £300k scheme aiming to reconnect the river with its floodplain – 7km of flood bank removed, 130ha of floodplain enhanced, 80ha of wetland created/enhanced. Large increase in wading bird and wildfowl populations registered. Gala Water – (ongoing) over 50ha of riparian planting and fencing in the headwaters aiming to attenuate floods and improve biodiversity. Craik project – 0.5 km remeandering (400% increase in channel length) and floodplain woodland (8000 trees) on the upper Borthwick Water. The local fishery biologist said that increasing channel length would likely give a corresponding increase in fish numbers. Other - Peatland restoration (ditch blocking, stock reduction, tree removal) at numerous sites across the catchment. Working with Scottish Water to improve water quality in the catchment surrounding their reservoir assets. The majority of these sites are open to viewing/visits at any time through the Forum and we spend a good deal of time showing people the work on the ground and sharing best practice/lessons learnt.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Our performance in delivering against the whole CMP is reviewed every 4-5 years, and a popular review document is produced that measures progress on the main targets within. With each project we monitor at different levels. At its most basic we use fixed point photography. This combined with the monitoring carried out by the agencies for WFD classification purposes and site condition monitoring, gives a good indication of how the status of the watercourse has changed at the landscape scale over time. (e.g good ecological status; favourable site condition). At the other end of the scale we carry out very detailed monitoring such as on the Eddleston and the Bowmont Water. On the former we have installed, in conjunction with Dundee University, SEPA, Forest Research and British Geological Survey, one of the most detailed hydrological/groundwater monitoring networks in the UK. This is complemented by detailed hydro-geomorphological and ecological surveys (in-stream habitats, sediments, invertebrates, macrophytes, electrofishing), so we accurately assess the effects of each intervention and the totality of all the restoration work we are doing at both reach and catchment scale.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Challenges: Landowner engagement and persuading farmers to lose productive ground or change the way they do things. Tweed Forum is able to overcome such barriers because it has become known as a trusted intermediary. We have no statute and can only do things through good will, persuasion, education and enthusiasm. We can speak the language of and know how to integrate restoration measures without impinging on the farm business and cut through the paperwork and manage the works. Working at a bigger scale also can prove challenging. For example the re-meandering at the Cringletie and Lake Wood involved 6 different landowners with the river acting as the boundary. Thus, moving the physical entity that acts as the property boundary is more than just a practical problem. Regulation – For example, re-meandering requires consent from SEPA under the controlled activity regulations, consent from SNH due to it being a designated site, planning permission from the local authority because it is deemed an engineering operation. All of these come with a raft of assessments for impact on flood risk, salmonids, ranunculus, otter etc. Funding – an ever present challenge. Some of the works are expensive and often there are no bespoke funding streams.


Image gallery


Vlcsnap-2014-07-21-10h33m30s237 (1024x576).jpg
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Solway Tweed
River basin Solway Tweed

Subcatchment

River name Eddleston water
Area category
Area (km2) 6969 km² <br />6,900 ha <br />
Maximum altitude category 200 - 500 m
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Grassland, Woodland
Waterbody ID



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Eddleston water


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 2003
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