Case study:Thackthwaite catchment restoration

From RESTORE
Revision as of 12:44, 14 March 2024 by AliceJames (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: 54° 36' 43.93" N, 2° 54' 56.27" 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 http://https://www.ucmcic.com/projects/natural-flood-management/flood-bank-reprofiling-thackthwaite/
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Social benefits, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Danny
Main contact surname Teasdale
Main contact user ID User:Ullswater CIC
Contact organisation Ullswater Catchment Management CIC
Contact organisation web site http://www.ucmcic.com
Partner organisations Environment Agency, The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, Natural England, Woodland Trust, Eden Rivers Trust
Parent multi-site project

Case_study:Ullswater Catchment Restoration

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Failing constructed flood levee

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Thackthwaite beck is a heavily modified watercourse. It has been straightened and dredged historically as part of previous land management actions. The beck has failing toe boards, and flood levees in the picture, which shows the extent to which the beck was trying to be retained in. This project began in 2018 to remove the flood levees and reprofile the adjacent land to allow better floodplain reconnection. Thackthwaite beck has a very large upland catchment in the Matterdale area and as such sees very high rainfall annually (2000mm+). The artificial works have been unable to cope with this rainfall and as such are failing. We are now working with the majority of landowners on this catchment to implement multiple varied improvements to either deliver habitat, river restoration or natural flood management benefits. To date we have created 25 ponds or wetland areas, made habitat improvements to over 3660m of Thackthwaite beck, through either in stream habitat improvements or riparian improvement, such as floodplain connection or tree planting. We have planted over 100,000 trees in the catchment, either as hedgerows, riparian planting or in field trees. Ullswater Catchment Management CIC are very proud of the fact that the majority of their work is on farmed land. We actively engage with the farming community and have developed trusted relationships with the farming community. The majority of our work is via invitation on farm to see what is possible.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Initial electro-fish survey on Thackthwaite beck prior to levee removal. Results showed low numbers of Salmonids and large numbers of Minnows. This is to be expected as prior to the levee removal the beck was very canalised and could not retain finer material suitable for spawning fish. Redd counts in autumn to monitor Trout and Salmon spawning success. 2023 was the best year to date for the number of redds, and sightings of Sea Trout and Salmon. Water quality sondes have been installed by the Environment Agency, these monitor water quality, temperature and turbidity.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


In our opinion the most valuable lesson learnt is to work with the landowner and be open and honest from the start. By listening to the landowner it helps to understand where the most suitable intervention may be on the watercourse. This is then followed by partner working, by having multiple partners working together it allows an increase in scale of delivery. Right improvement in the right place. We have seen other individual projects being delivered which do not have the support of neighbouring landowners, and whilst this may return site specific benefits it can often be at the detriment of the wider catchment, as the works can't be replicated close by to build upon the benefits of the initial project.


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