Case study:Little Ponton

From RESTORE
Revision as of 14:28, 19 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: 53° 9' 7.49" N, 0° 38' 10.62" 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 Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Matt
Main contact surname Parr
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations Grantham Angling Association Fly Fishing Section
Parent multi-site project

Upper Witham Restoration

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Brushwood mattress in restoration section

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Project Objectives

• To reduce fine sediment inputs caused by bank erosion. • Trap mobile fine sediments already in the river. • To improve conveyance during higher flows and reduce flood risk. • To improve in-stream habitats and the bed structure to benefit fish and invertebrates, including white-clawed crayfish.

The Enhancement Scheme The enhancement scheme was completed in two phases. A short section downstream of Great Ponton Mill was completed in February 2013 and the second, the continuation downstream to Whalebone Lane, Little Ponton, was completed in mid-August 2014. Prior to the enhancement work the in-river habitat was in generally good condition, however opportunities were identified to provide additional cover and food supply for a range of aquatic organisms together with measures to modify the flow to improve the structure of the riverbed and reduce the deposition of fine sediment.

The works consisted of brushwood mattress installation, Hinged Trees, Log Flow Deflectors and Vanes, improved stock fencing and ford refurbishment were all undertaken.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


A fixed point photographic record has been set up and this, together with visual inspections, will be used to monitor the integrity and performance of the in-stream structures. A programme of fine sediment sampling and Wolman Pebble Counts to monitor the coarser riverbed material has also been established. In combination they will determine and record changes to river morphology as the result of the works. The established crayfish monitoring site at the bottom of the reach is already surveyed every 2 years and this will give an indication of the impact of the scheme on crayfish numbers. Finally additional ongoing invertebrate sampling will identify any ecological and water quality changes that occur.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Learning lessons from the earlier GAAFFS work, willow logs were was not used in the subsequent phase of enhancement work. Instead logs, branches and brushwood generated by the management of other riverside tree and shrub species were used to create a variety of structures to protect vulnerable banks from erosion, narrow the channel and trap suspended fine sediment.


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