Case study:River Idle Restoration Project

From RESTORE
Revision as of 11:18, 26 June 2015 by Jfreeborough (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° 23' 11.69" N, 0° 55' 52.52" 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 In progress
Project web site
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename David
Main contact surname Newborough
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The project was in collaboration with the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust to establish a partnership that will enable joint working and delivery of high quality habitat restoration along the River Idle and its tributaries.

The River Idle was identified as having significant potential for high quality habitat restoration and for the substantial improvement of its water quality to meet WFD objectives. There were several strategies in existence for the Idle and many partners interested in the catchment. We were also finalising the Isle of Axholme Flood Risk Management Strategy. With so many organisations keen to be involved in the enhancement of the river, the project established an overarching Management Group, which brought together partners to ensure efficient and complementary working towards a shared vision. Such a "joined-up" approach offered better opportunities for innovation and access to funding than working in isolation.

The catchment partnership will continue to take forward actions to improve the river and realise multiple benefits.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Working with landowners to create species-rich grassland buffer strips to reduce diffuse agricultural pollution from adjacent arable land through absorption of agricultural run-off. We installed hinged large woody debris to improve channel conditions for benefits for fish spawning and aerate flows. These will hopefully start to show an improvement from a WFD perspective through the habitat improvements.

The projects main success has been the establishment of the Idle Management Partnership Group. Although the group has taken time to develop and have a clear purpose, it has been beneficial to have landowners as well as partner organisations meeting together to discuss what's best for the river.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


This has been a 3-year project. The partnership has taken that time to become established with clear objectives for the future. Partnerships of this size do take time.


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