Case study:Lullingstone Castle phase 2

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


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


Location: 51° 21' 10", 0° 11' 24"
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
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Tom
Main contact surname Cook
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Example of first phase works

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Aimed to improve the overall habitat of this section of river with a particular focus on habitat creation which would support spawning opportunities as well as juvenile and adult habitat for native Brown Trout. This was recognised as a section in very poor condition. The specific objectives were as follows:
1. To improve in-stream habitat by cleaning areas of loose gravels and increasingly flow rates to an optimal level to support fish, especially brown native trout, and creating habitat to support both juvenile and adult fish.
2. Increase natural flows which, even during low flows during the summer, can provide a healthy and diverse habitat.
3. Clear heavily shaded trees and plant marginal aquatic plants to support invertebrates and other aquatic life (water voles).
4. Improve the appearance of the river by creating a natural sinuous flow through this stretch of river, narrowing the channel using large woody debris and woody faggots to create in-channel structures.
5. Increase fishing opportunities within the river (and overall condition of the section). Over abstraction has led to the degradation of the Darent, where characteristic chalk-river chacateristics: clear water, macrophytes, low bans and natural flows have been lost. It has experienced heavy modification and provided power for milling and historic agricultural irrigation. The river also flows into a number of large on-line lakes that fragment habitat and put additional pressure on water quality and quantity.

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

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Qualitative success criteria were developed by the Project Partnership. All of the aims have been delivered upon with observed improvements in the quality of habitat and features particularly. It is believed that fish populations are improving, with wild brown trout being caught, suggesting that it could become an important local breeding area. Further areas where improvements can be made are being identified.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin Darent

Subcatchment

River name Mid Darent
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 200 - 500 m
Maximum altitude (m) 244
244 m
0.244 km
24,400 cm
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Arable and Horticulture
Waterbody ID GB106040024222



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Darent Valley Path, Lullingstone Castle, River Darent at Hawley Manor


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106040024222
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Mid Darent
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
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) 500 m
0.5 km
50,000 cm
Project started 2011/01/01
Works started
Works completed 2011/01/01
Project completed
Total cost category 1 - 10 k€
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Environment Agency (Fisheries) Contribution of staff time (NWKCP, KAPS)

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 Freshwater flow regime, Substrate conditions
Biology Fish, Invertebrates, Macrophytes
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor Habitat creation
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