Case study:River Avon Our Water Environment

From RESTORE
Revision as of 16:12, 28 July 2020 by JosMilner (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: 57° 15' 6.32" N, 3° 23' 33.79" 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 Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
Country Scotland
Main contact forename Jos
Main contact surname Milner
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Tomintoul & Glenlivet Landscape Partnership
Contact organisation web site http://https://www.tomintoulandglenlivet.com/our-water-environment/
Partner organisations Spey Fisheries Board, Cairngorms National Park Authority, Crown Estate Scotland, Delnabo Estate, Fordmouth Farm
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
File:Fordmouth.jpeg
Engineered woody structure along river bank at Fordmouth Farm - soil scrapped back & 8m long tree trunks, with intact root plates towards river, located along bank prior to burying

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


River restoration works have been carried out along a high-energy reach of the River Avon within the River Spey Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in Cairngorms National Park. The project encompasses green engineering woody structures and sediment management, as well as water margin management and riparian planting. The aim is to improve the capability of the watercourse to cope with high flow events, reduce excessive erosion and to protect in-channel and riparian habitats, as well as farm livelihoods and infrastructure. The works were carried out as a Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS), supported and managed by a National Lottery Heritage Funded partnership (Tomintoul & Glenlivet Landscape Partnership) as part of their wider ‘Our Water Environment’ project running across the Tomintoul and Glenlivet area.

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

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Cash flow is an issue as sizable sums required up front – project partner supported cash flow but the project could have been wider-reaching without this problem.

Significant up-front investment is required to carry out initial survey work required to be able to inform land owners / managers about risks involved and allow them to decide if this is something they can accommodate.

Lack of understanding about green engineering techniques means significant engagement is required early on to gain buy-in & permissions.


Image gallery


File:Fordmouth log revetment 1
Tree trunks with intact root balls creating new log revetment river bank
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Scotland RBD
River basin River Spey

Subcatchment

River name River Avon
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2) 545545 km² <br />54,500 ha <br />
Maximum altitude category 500 - 1000 m
Maximum altitude (m) 700700 m <br />0.7 km <br />70,000 cm <br />
Dominant geology granite, sedimentary, metamorphosed sedimentary
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Moorland, agriculture, forestry
Waterbody ID 23084



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Allt Lorgy River Restoration


Site

Name Fordmouth Farm, Tomintoul
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name River Avon
Pre-project morphology Wandering
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation EU - Special Area of Conservation
Local/regional site designations Cairngorms National Park
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present No
Species of interest Atlantic salmon, European Otter, Sea lamprey, Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera)
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate Cobble
River corridor land use Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture
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 0.001 - 0.01
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2) 198 198 W/m² <br />


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m) 180180 m <br />0.18 km <br />18,000 cm <br />
Project started 2015
Works started 2019/08/01
Works completed 2019/09/30
Project completed 2020/09/30
Total cost category 50 - 100 k€
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Scottish Rural Development Programme, National Lottery Heritage Fund

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design EnviroCentre
Stakeholder engagement and communication Tomintoul & Glenlivet Landscape Partnership
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 Bank stabilisation using engineered wood structures; sediment management
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other Set-back fencing & riparian planting
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