Case study:Tidal Dee Love my Estuary

From RESTORE
Revision as of 13:52, 16 September 2024 by Ascarr (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status Complete
Project web site http://www.cheshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/lovemyestuary
Themes Estuary, Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Urban, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Sarah
Main contact surname Bennett
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Cheshire Wildlife Trust
Contact organisation web site http://www.cheshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/
Partner organisations
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
Pollution Prevention Pack cover

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The Dee (N.Wales) transitional waterbody is currently at moderate potential, with levels of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrate (DIN) identified as the Reason for Not Achieving Good status. As a transitional waterbody, the vast majority of water quality issues are inherited from upstream. With only a short stretch of the River Dee sitting within our catchment partnership area, we focussed on reducing water pollution on the small coastal waterbodies sitting on the English side of the border: Finchetts Gutter, Shotwick Brook and Burton Brook, as well as the unclassified land bordering the eastern coast of the Estuary (West Wirral), which features a designated Bathing Water at West Kirby. The Estuary features designated Shellfish Waters (Dee (West) and Dee (East)) and is internationally important for wildlife; as reflected in its designations as an SAC, SPA and Ramsar site.

The Tidal Dee Catchment Partnership has identified misconnections and poorly managed septic tanks as a significant pollution issue within these waterbodies, particularly due to the lack of mains sewerage on Burton Brook and Shotwick Brook and due to the urban nature of Finchetts Gutter. These issues are reflected in the Reasons for Not Achieving Good Status for our 3 target waterbodies and the Dee (N.Wales) transitional waterbody. Finchetts Gutter also sits within a Nutrient Sensitive Area.

The Tidal Dee Catchment Partnership, through stakeholder engagement, has identified a general detachment from the estuary amongst local communities – particularly a lack of understanding of how personal actions affect the water environment. Learning from the successes of the Environment Agency/United Utilities/Keep Britain Tidy “Love my Beach” project, we want to use water pollution issues as a way to inspire stakeholders towards greater stewardship of the water environment as well as achieving a greater understanding of the importance of water quality on wildlife amongst local communities.

Whilst advice is available on water pollution issues with leaflets often offered, tailored advice packs for different sectors do not currently exist. Not knowing which organisation to seek what type of advice from often leads to issues with getting across simple, succinct and relevant advice.

We are aware that these issues are far from unique to this catchment, so we wish to utilise this as an opportunity to scope best practice in order to help towards the reduction of water pollution nationally.

Work included educating the community on environmental protection and promoting environmentally-friendly behaviour.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


A good coverage was achieved across all three waterbodies with nearly 80% of their total length covered by walkover surveys. This resulted in 293 recorded pollution sources, whether observed or potential. The vast majority of pollution sources noted only showed potential for impacting the waterbodies, with comparatively few (9 significant) having a significant impact on over 100 metres of watercourse.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Water pollution is a difficult topic to engage and enthuse members of the public about. More people were engaged about the topic when we held stands at already existing events that people would be going to rather than hoping people would attend an event specifically held by this project. We found that making the events aimed at homeowners targeted to families meant that more people attended and we could discuss general water management and water pollution with the adults whilst the children did craft activities. Relating water pollution to wildlife on the estuary (which is a prominent feature locally) meant it was easier to engage members of the public about the topic.

The walkover surveys were a success in gathering information to inform future delivery projects and in engaging partner organisations in Water Framework Directive project delivery.

The quality of the Pollution Prevention Pack was highly regarded by partners including stakeholders from other Catchment Partnerships. Enthusiasm for the packs has come from stakeholders in Devon, Gloucestershire, Northumberland, Derbyshire, Sussex, Shropshire and Bedfordshire. We know of two organisations from neighbouring Catchment Partnerships that are making minor amendments to the electronic version so they can use them locally.

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 53° 14' 20.82" N, 2° 59' 38.51" W
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Subcatchment:Dee (N. Wales)


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 2015/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Catchment Partnership Action Fund

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 Water quality
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical Misconnected sewer pipes
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) Community involvement, Community Education
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