Case study:Eastridge Estate restoration project
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Joshua |
Main contact surname | Robins |
Main contact user ID | User:JoshRRC |
Contact organisation | Eastridge Estate and Windrush AEC Ltd |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | River Restoration Centre |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The River Kennet was the subject overviews by the Environment Agency and Natural England. These overviews revealed that the Kennet was in an unfavourable condition with respect to its SSSI designation. Problems included barriers to fish migration, of which there were 3 major and 1 minor. Barriers usually refer to weirs which completely block any way for fish and eels to get to their spawning grounds. Weirs can also prevent the conveyance of sediments throughout a reach. The water meadows surrounding the channel were also classified as being in 'poor' condition.
The project objectives were to:
- Achieve favourable condition for the length of the Kennet through the estate. - Achieve favourable condition for the Kennet, Lambourn and water meadows on the estate. - Increase hydrological connectivity between the river and floodplain. - Remove barriers to fish migration. - Improve wild trout numbers. - Improve the overall water quality of the fishery.
The measures used to combat these issues included the introduction of 3,000 tonnes of gravel along the profile. This was to allow for the formation of natural features such as riffles. The channel was narrowed by 5m in places to also allow for natural flows and variations withinin the channel. To address the four barriers to migration, fish and eel passes were built. Trees were cut back to reduce the amount of shade and introduce more light into the channel.
At points along the reach the banks were lowered to promote flooding onto the wetlands. Parts of the wetlands were also excavated to provide a better environment for the wildlife on the wetlands.
The project appears to have been a success with many of the objectives been achieved.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|