Property:Lessons learnt
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text
H
Wood for construction of deflectors was sourced locally and work was undertaken by hand. Therefore the size of deflectors were limited to what could be manoeuvred by hand. Despite their size, careful consideration of the prevailing flow and sediment conditions meant they could be placed to achieve optimum benefit.
In November 2014 some of the wooden posts, used to hold deflectors in place, had to be replaced. The posts were 75 mm diameter and it is thought that the staples and screws used to secure wire to these posts were too large, causing the post to be weakened and split under load. We have since replaced posts with 20 mm re-bar drilled through the deflectors. Post diameter and staple size should be considered when planning how to secure LWD. +
R
Work could not be carried out in section 3 due to the firmness of the riverbed. It is reccomended in the future that the firmness of the riverbed should be tested to ensure habitat improvement works can be carried out.
Install coir matting vegetation at the same time as installing brushwood, we had to rely on individual plug plants when planting. Although plugs are cheaper than matting. +
C
Working with a local contractor Seed and Spur, we were able to complete the works within the timescale and under budget of £750 in addition to SRT staff costs to prepare the consents, engage the business and monitor the work. +
L
You can set back flood defences even in highly constrained locations. In particular the A13 site is located next bridge supporting a major road into London. The steel sheet piling has been removed and intertidal banks have been restored. +
G
cost neutral +
E
expected soon... +
N
implementation was delayed by one year due to difficulties with obtaining permits (due to objections from the local community). It Fryske Gea had to go to court to obtain the necessary permits (personal
communication, It Fryske Gea). +
R
• Engaging the local community is critical
• In these early days of river restoration the project showed what could be expected from a restoration project and how it develops (might be different from anticipated) – this needs to be built into decision making process
• It is important to do a formal long-term management plan, and have a cooperating (and stable) land owner
• The project showed a whole suite of demonstration techniques (included in the Manual of River Restoration Techniques http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_manual.php)
• The project clearly showed the complexity of a linear system (compared with pond), and that it's difficult to distinguish success between different components
• The project gave a big boost to river restoration in the UK and showed that it is possible to do “large scale” (for that time) projects +
W
• Need for guaranteed funding over the life of the project (year to year) – possible delays
• The need to be flexible, projects drop out (cost implication) prior to agreements being signed
• Need to confirm ownership and vested interest in land (e.g. pension fund / banks / trusts etc)
• Valley bottom land is vital for the farming business to succeed in upland areas
• Complications caused by multiple landowners – e.g. access provision (cost implications)
• Still belief in farming community that the continued maintenance of watercourses are vital
• Agricultural schemes can be inflexible and can result in increased costs & complexity
• Disturbance payments may be necessary as a form of inducement and to cover period of construction and recovery (short and long term losses)
• Need to comply with State Aid rules
• Constraints and compromises – they will significantly affect the detailed design (e.g. agreeing route of new channel with landowners, footpath temporary closures / re-routing etc)
• Question of liability for new channel once handed back to landowner
• Scale of engineering required in new channel design and at point of break out
• The need for sufficient mixed bed substrate to enable natural processes to sort and deposit
• The necessity for appropriate land licence agreements and construction contracts to protect all parties
• Planning permission (National Park) – could be significant delay and is an additional cost
• Flood risk (significant flooding in 2005 and 2009) – may require detailed flood risk assessment and associated public consultation (takes time)
• Weather conditions during construction (delays) and land area required for de-watering (potentially additional costs and risk)
• Commuted sum required for new bridge construction under roads
• Demand for public access to site once scheme completed
• Need for future monitoring (harder to secure funding for)
• Need a means to access funding for any unforeseen future liabilities +
R
• Planning process – Getting in at early enough stage in order to help developer understand how River Restoration could benefit them & their site. Setting up early meetings with dev & work with Local Authorities assisted with this.
• Permitting process - understanding this complex process was a challenge and helping developers to apply. Engaging the appropriate people helped with this.
• Watervoles – Concern over temporary damage to WaterVole habitat. Short term loss/long term gain
• Land ownership – challenges leading to restriction in where River Restoration could take place. Overcame this issue by presenting case studies from River Restoration Centre website & talking with developers consultants who were designing development sites. +
P
• Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks & connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers
• Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate.
• Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.
• Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily. +
H
• Taking into account the historic context of the site, the project was delivered sensitively.
• The legacy of the project will benefit wildlife and people in a number of ways (access to nature, recreation). +