Case study:UP! - The Usk Project

From RESTORE
Revision as of 09:52, 21 June 2017 by Alexrrc (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 42' 12.72" N, 2° 54' 12.25" 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, Water quality
Country Wales
Main contact forename Stephen
Main contact surname Marsh-Smith
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Wye & Usk Foundation
Contact organisation web site http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/
Partner organisations Environment Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, Forestry Commission Brecon Beacons National Park, University of Wales, Cardiff, United Usk Fishermen's Association, Keep Wales Tidy, Wildlife Trusts
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Upper Usk

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Our first venture with the Usk owners and fishermen was the joint buy out of the putchers and nets in the Estuary in 2000. Working together showed how much there was in common with the interests on the Wye and at the end of an appropriate 'engagement', we merged. The first priority after joining forces was to submit a project under ERDF Objective 2 and Transitional funding as these sources of major funds for river restoration were coming to an end. After several months work, the Foundation succeeded in gaining approval for two paired projects in the Transitional and Objective 2 areas that jointly cover the Usk catchment from source to Abergavenny. The projects commenced in January 2004 originally to run until the end of 2006. Together they are called the Usk Project, or more simply UP! and have a total projected spend of £0.9 million.

In 2007, a year's extension was granted to UP! (above Brecon) taking the total budget to £1.12m. UP! funding was used to restore the degraded and inaccessible habitat on the Usk tributary streams and through the reopening of the blocked tributaries.

A marketing strategy similar to that set up in pHish was used to bring the benefits of river improvements to the rural economy with the ultimate goal of making these improvements self funding and sustainable. Our partners are listed below and includes for the first time Brecon Beacons National Park, through which most of the rivers involved in the project flow.

While the salmon fishing on the Usk may have improved since the 2000 net buy off (funded by Wye Salmon Fishery Owners Association, United Usk Fisherman's Association and the then Wye Foundation), there is still considerable scope for improvement and the famous Usk brown trout is not as numerous as it once was. Many regular fishermen are pointing out that while the average size of trout has risen dramatically (2lb fish are now common), numbers of small fish have declined. Stocking with hatchery reared fish is bad news for the river as it is expensive, fails to tackle the underlying problems and endangers the native populations. In addition, 'stockies' are no substitute for the famous native Usk trout.

Fishery scientists use the term 'lack of recruitment' to describe the phenomenon of poor juvenile fish production. The problem lies in the smaller tributaries. Siltation, diffuse pollution, habitat destruction and obstructions are the prime suspects and UP! is the means of putting right these evils.


UP! Project achievements:

Fish passes were built on:

Cynrig

Rhiangoll

Crawnon


Significant barriers to fish migration were removed on:

Cilieni

Menasgin

Sorgwm

Ychen


...while minor barriers were removed on:

Tarell

Menasgin (again)

Honddu

Grwyne.


Habitat restoration work was completed on:

Bran

Crai

Ysgir Fawr

Grwyne

Upper main stem Usk

Ethrim

Rhiangoll

Tarell

Honddu

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


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 2004/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2007/12/31
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 Barriers to fish migration, Habitat degredation, Siltation, Diffuse pollution
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Removal of fish barriers, Livestock fencing, Habitat restoration
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