Case study:Upper Witham Restoration

From RESTORE
Revision as of 13:22, 27 February 2024 by Dhutchinson (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
5.00
(one vote)


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


Location: 52° 20' 44.58" N, 0° 48' 32.51" E
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 Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename David
Main contact surname Hutchinson
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://Environment%20Agency
Partner organisations East Mercia Rivers Trust, formerly Lincolnshire Rivers Trust, Wild Trout Trust, National Trust, Grantham Angling Association Fly Fishing Section, South Kesteven District Council, University of Lincoln.
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
Aubourn Rock Ramp and Habitat Works, Belton Floodplain Reconnection and River Restoration, Dysart Park, Grantham Habitat Improvement, Grantham Blue Green - Urban Reach, Little Ponton, Manthorpe Floodplain Reconnection, Papermill Weir Section in-channel restoration, River Witham Great Ponton, Stainby Road, Colsterworth, Syston and Barkston Restoration, Upper Cringle Floodplain Restoration Project, Upper River Witham : Easton, Westborough, Wyndham Park, Grantham
Wetted floodplain at Manthorpe following restoration

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The Upper Witham has been subject to significant changes which have modified the river and its hydrological functioning. These legacy interventions have been damaging to habitat and with serious pollution incidents, climate change implications and invasive species threats, native species such as White Clawed Cray-fish and Brown Trout are at risk of local extinction. A ground water fed system has now also become far more reactive in response to an increase in storm intensity across the area.

Habitat improvement, rejuvenating a self-regulating functional active river system has been an aspiration for stakeholders working in the catchment for some time. Initial attempts at improving in-channel habitat from 2013 (EA, WTT and GAAFFs) used hinged trees and berms to narrow the river and scour pools. In the lower reaches, downstream of Grantham, this provided habitat in a system where it had previously been removed and was a good addition. Reviews of work did however indicate that this approach was not always having the desired effect; linked to very resistant clay bed and banks, poor gravel supply, and a lack of floodplain connectivity.

Lessons were learned and subsequent landowner and flood risk engagement took place. These were applied in the EA and NT’s Belton project which began in 2016 with imported gravels added at the time. This worked well and provided a blueprint for works in the nearby urban setting of Wyndham Park, Grantham (EA and SKDC in 2017). More urban projects in the town followed from the Rivers Trusts (Dysart Park 2020) and most notably the Blue Green corridor project led by SKDC with more gravels added, trees hinged, berms created, and wildflower and wetlands introduced widely along the river. Belton was revisited in 2023 where floodplain connectivity was increased through strategic floodplain lowering and reconnection using live and dead woody material as the driver for change.

The scale and ambition of individual projects increased with a more recent focus on larger scale projects connecting rivers with their floodplains more frequently. Manthorpe flood bank removal in 2020 (WTT and EA), Upper Cringle Brook ‘stage 8’ 2022 (EMRT), Grange Farm Stage 0 restoration (EA 2021) and Colsterworth (EMRT 2023) system reactivation, as well as innovative techniques such as smaller size gravel augmentation downstream of weirs (2023, WTT and GAAFFS at Papermill weir). Three large scale weir easement projects have also taken place at Aubourn (2016), Great Ponton (2015) and Easton (2014).

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


We have learnt a great deal about lowland restoration and have applied this learning as the projects have progressed. Valuable feedback has come from revisiting project sites and undertaking objective reviews e.g 2018 Wild Trout Trust report . This is how we identified the importance of gravel and floodplain connectivity. We have long term ecological data for sites in the river that indicate that habitat works play a part in the continued improvement and prevention of determination of the ecology e.g Foston Ford fish surveys. Other sites like Easton Park show the limitations of some of the early in-channel techniques particular for fish populations although other factors like pollution incidents and low flow may be playing a role. Trout Redd surveys also provide good supporting data. Other monitoring techniques we have used include geomorphological surveys and drone topographical surveys. As the larger projects continue to evolve, our understanding of the impact they are having continues to develop, but it is clear following the storm events of winter 23/24 that we are undertaking projects that are both sustainable and are returning dynamic river processes to a lowland system.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


To get maximum benefit from projects, in areas with less constraints, we needed to look wider than interventions focused just within the channel and consider the floodplain as well. Further learning for individual projects can be found in the project specific case studies.


Image gallery


Colsterworth just after restoration.
Belton floodplain inundating Winter 2023
Wyndham Park Project 2019
Cringle Brook after restoration.
Grange Farm Stage Zero Winter 2023.
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Anglian
River basin Witham

Subcatchment

River name Upper Witham
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 4646 m <br />0.046 km <br />4,600 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Arable and Horticulture
Waterbody ID GB105030056760



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Aubourn Rock Ramp and Habitat Works, Belton Floodplain Reconnection and River Restoration, Dysart Park, Grantham Habitat Improvement, Grantham Blue Green - Urban Reach, Little Ponton, Manthorpe Floodplain Reconnection, Papermill Weir Section in-channel restoration, River Witham Great Ponton, Stainby Road, Colsterworth, Syston and Barkston Restoration... further results


Site

Name Upper Witham Restoration
WFD water body codes GB105030056780, GB105030051570, GB105030051560
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Upper Witham - Headwaters to Confluence Cringle Brook, Upper Witham Confluence Cringle Brook to Confluence Brant and Upper Cringle Brook
Pre-project morphology In general - Disconnected from floodplain, lack of wood, lack of gravel and gravel supply.
Reference morphology Lower Cringle Brook
Desired post project morphology In general and unconstrained areas - More connected floodplains, gravel and wood
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present No
Species of interest Brown Trout, Otters, Water voles and Native Crayfish
Dominant hydrology Ground Water System
Dominant substrate Clay
River corridor land use Livestock and arable.
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