Case study:Lugg & Arrow, Radnorshire

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° 21' 24", -3° 12' 33"
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/luggandarrowrad.php
Themes Economic aspects, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
Country 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

Leader+, RES, LARA

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The upper most part of the rivers Lugg and Arrow rise in east Wales, before flowing through the border towns of Presteigne and Kington. At this point, both are quite substantial rivers and since these upper reaches qualify for funding from East Wales European Regional Development Funds, and are in urgent need of restoration, we designed a project focussing on habitat restoration and fisheries development. Building on work delivered by the Foundation and its partners within the Leader + Projects downstream in Herefordshire (which established fish access within the lower Lugg and Arrow), the project's aims are: restoring the riparian habitat so that fish populations become self sustaining and encouraging the diversification of rural businesses to meet the growing demand for 'wild' fishing, thereby enhancing the rural economy of Radnorshire.

This will be achieved by implementing the following measures:

• A comprehensive survey of the environmental/ecological issues within the Lugg and Arrow catchments.

• Targeted restoration of 25km of riparian habitat, directly ourselves and in association with landowners and other conservation organisations such as the Radnorshire Wildlife Trust.

• Restoration of riparian habitat, using our own workforce and in association with landowners and other conservation organisations such as the Radnorshire Wildlife Trust.

• Restoration of fish access especially for brown trout within the sub catchment by removal of barriers.

• Supporting local fisheries through marketing initiatives (The Passport) and increasing business for local accommodation providers, pubs etc. Work commenced on the Gladestry Brook, an important tributary of the Arrow, where coppicing and fencing was completed on 3.5km of river. Other sites completed during the project included the Lugg at Pilleth, Dolly Green, Litton, Rock Bridge and Achill, the Arrow at Wernol and Upper Hergest, the Cascob Brook and the Builth Road Dulas. Most encouraging of all was the response from landowners, who realise the rationale behind the work and the undoubted benefits that accrue.

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 2006/06/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2008/06/01
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 Habitat degradation, Barriers to fish migration, Erosion of banks
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Removal of fish barriers, Fencing
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions Supporting local fisheries through marketing initiatives
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