Case study:LARA (Lugg and River Arrow)

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 52° 18' 18", -3° 4' 23"
Edit location
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 http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/projects/lara.php
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Water quality
Country England, 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
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
The results of habitat work on the Pinsley brook. The photo was taken 6 months after the stream was fenced off and shows regeneration of bank and in-river vegetation, along with a narrowing and deepening of the stream.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


In 2008 the Foundation secured funding from the SITA Trust's Enriching Nature Programme for a £194,000 lower Lugg and Arrow project. The trust was set up to manage sums from SITA's landfill tax and has used this to support actions under Entrust's DA (Biodiversity) measure. With support from the Lugg & Arrow Fisheries Association (LAFA) and from the Wye Salmon Fisheries Owners Association (WSFOA), LARA will improve the biodiversity in the Lugg and Arrow within 10 miles of Leominster's licensed land fill site. In 2007 salmon, trout and the habitat "rivers and streams" were added to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). These, plus brook and river lamprey, bullhead, otter, a wide range of invertebrates (inc. crayfish), grey wagtail, kingfisher, dipper and sand martin will benefit from the project.

The project has 3 main areas of activity:

• Riverline habitat restoration

• Fish passage

• Improving water quality


The project began with baseline surveys including a macrophyte (plants that live in or near water) survey.


Habitat Restoration

The project will focus on fencing out the most damaged of the tributaries in the area. These include: Pinsley; Tippets; Broad; Aston; Curl and Wellington brooks; and the river Arrow.

In addition to this, a sequential 3-year work plan has been developed for 1.2km of the main stem of the Lugg at Mortimer's cross. The first stage of this involved re-establishment of ranunculus and increasing the cover on the banks. 580m was completed in September 2009. Also, a new site of 2.4km of main stem on the Arrow at Monkland was coppiced and the willow laid into the banks.

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 2008/08/15
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2010/11/30
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
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Creation of fish passes, Bank improvement, Cut back of trees, Livestock fencing
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