Case study:Belton Floodplain Reconnection and River Restoration

From RESTORE
Revision as of 16:37, 8 February 2024 by Dhutchinson (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: 52° 56' 11.52" N, 0° 37' 33.10" 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 Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename David
Main contact surname Hutchinson
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environement Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations South Kesteven District Council, National Trust
Parent multi-site project

Upper Witham Restoration

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Belton wet floodplain winter 23/24.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


This project builds upon two previously successful restoration projects in partnership between the EA and National Trust (landowner) that involved channel narrowing and adding gravel riffles. Its aims were to further increase floodplain connectivity and complexity, create wetlands and to restore natural river processes. To help the river come out of bank and onto its floodplain more frequently woody material jams were created using a combination of willow and alder along with discrete areas of floodplain lowering. The floodplain complexity was improved by adding fallen wood across it along with tree planting to ensure longer term wood supply for the river. Floodplain willows were hinged both into the river and on the floodplain. Shallow scrapes were dug to create areas of standing water and imitation Beaver Dam were installed to encourage areas of deeper wetland. Frequently wetted, lowland floodplain is a very important but rare habitat type that delivers many ecosystem services benefits. Its restoration usually involves the movement of lots of spoil at high cost. This work is innovative in that it involves the use of lower cost, less intensive and more natural methods.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


The wetting frequency of the floodplain has significantly increased since the final phase of work. Anecdotal evidence for the fishing clubs supports increase Brown Trout numbers.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


When planning a large-scale project of this nature, the first consideration should be what is the lowest cost and least disruptive way of achieving the objectives. Previous habitat works have focussed on lowering the floodplain to meet the water surface. This is often costly with excess spoil to move and spread and has a high initial impact on site both ecologically and aesthetically. It can also be very effective to work up projects in several phases over several years to allow interventions to be in and establish e.g channel narrowing followed by gravel introduction.


Image gallery


Channel before any of the works.
Channel post works.
Woody material added to channel to improve floodplain connectivity.
Wet floodplain winter 23/24
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