Case study:River Stour at Glen's weir (Throop fisheries)

From RESTORE
Revision as of 16:19, 18 December 2012 by NickRRC (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: 50° 45' 33.32" N, 1° 49' 56.84" 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
Country England
Main contact forename Nick
Main contact surname Elbourne
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation River Restoration Centre
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Completed project (The Environment Agency, River Stour report doc, 2011)

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The works completed by the Environment Agency contributed to the Stour achieving good ecological status under the Water Framework Directive. Aims were to:

-increase flow and natural scouring, to encourage self-cleaning of gravels

-enhance existing spawning areas up and downstream of Glens Weir

-increase parr and barbell habitat

-re-instate collapsed banks, re-profile weir pool to increase pool habitats

-provide fly refuge area

-reduce cattle poaching

Dredging in the 1970’s removed thousands of tonnes of gravel to reduce flood risk. This eliminated large areas of spawning habitat for many species of fish. In some places the river has re-naturalised, however routine dredging still takes place downstream as part of the Christchurch flood alleviation scheme. The project aimed to provide new spawning habitat in a previously dredged area. The location was selected based on data gathered by the Environment Agency, The Barbel Society and Ringwood & District Angling Association. Pre-project monitoring work was completed, with post-project monitoring taking place with the help of the RDAA and Barbel Society through catch data, electrofishing and red count data. Around 600 tonnes of Portland stone was used to complete the works; bank stabilisation, old weir structure, flow deflectors and in channel re-profiling. The area was also fenced to prevent cattle poaching, with a gate to allow angler access.

The works have lead to increased flows over the spawning area, and the creation of holding features for larger adult fish. Over 100m of river habitat has been restored. In the past the Stour has often been seen as second best compared with neighbouring rivers but this is now changing.

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.

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment


Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)

Subcatchment:Stour


Site

Edit 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

Edit 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

Edit reasons for restoration
Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Edit 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

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Edit 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

Edit Other responses
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents



Image gallery



Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information