Case study:River Aggregate Sustainability Project (RASP)

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


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


Location: 52° 7' 50.38" N, 3° 47' 1.36" 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 http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/
Themes Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban
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 The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, Environment Agency Wales, Countryside Council for Wales
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Since the advent of mechanisation, removing sand and gravel from rivers and streams as a cheap source of material for tracks and buildings has become an increasingly common practice. Some extraction is, of course, legitimate but much is illegal. In other circumstances it is misjudgement in timing or site. There is by no means common agreement amongst statutory bodies as to the precise application of existing regulations or legislation. On top of that, such legislation and regulations that are in existence appear impossible to enforce.

The effects of these extractions can be catastrophic for channel stability, spawning fish and invertebrate life in rivers that are already facing huge challenges from other adverse land use practices. It is perceived, however, that of all aggregate removal in the UK, that from rivers and streams remains some of the most environmentally damaging.


RASP is funded by The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, the Environment Agency Wales and Countryside Council for Wales and will ...

1. Work with Statutory bodies and specialist solicitors Guy Linley-Adams & Fish Legal we have established the current position with the law and regulation in respect of the damaging activities recorded.

2. Establishing with scientific advice what is acceptable in respect of timing, quantity, method and choice of site.

3. Produce, with Statutory bodies, Bi Lingual information and "Best Practice" guidelines (click for English or Welsh) that would guide and reduce damaging extractions.

4. Discussions with persons exercising their rights identified to be unacceptably detrimental.

5. Follow up and monitoring.


The project will reconcile extraction needs with knowledge about the sensitivities and potential damage to river ecology. Success in managing this in the Usk and Wye could lead to a pan England and Wales application.

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 2008/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2010/12/31
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 Gravel removal
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
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 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