Case study:The Lugg & Arrow, Leader +

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° 18' 18.24" N, 3° 4' 22.93" 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/projects/luggandarrow.php
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Social benefits, Water quality
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 Lugg and Arrow Fisheries Association, Environment Agency, Herefordshire Rivers, The Wye Salmon Fishery Owners Association
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.


Herefordshire Rivers LEADER+ Programme:

A Fisheries Improvement Scheme


The essential features of the project were:

• Engaging with local people and explaining the importance of their rivers, the problems affecting them and the value their rivers bring.

• Restoring and correcting some of the factors that limit Lugg and Arrow fisheries - fish passes and habitat restoration.

• Education - salmon in the classroom. Reared salmon were released by children at various local schools into the Arrow to help restore the run, a useful introduction to biology. This was in combination with the removal of obstructions to migration. The four schools involved in this aspect of the project were: Kingsland CE School; Kington Primary School; Marden Primary and Pembridge Primary School.

At the outset, we identified a need for fencing on some of the lowland tributaries where excessive stock poaching and grazing was causing a serious siltation problem. Our efforts to tackle this put us in direct conflict with the Lugg Internal Drainage Board, whose prime objective is not principally concerned with the good ecological status of the streams in their domain.

Weirs were originally constructed for many reasons ranging from providing water power and irrigation, via a series of carriers, to flood and erosion prevention. Many are either an intrinsic part of the Herefordshire countryside and still functional and so removal is either too costly or unacceptable. Fortunately, providing fish access does not necessarily require this as there are simpler ways using the natural ability of salmonids to ascend obstacles by fitting fish passes on the weirs or by using existing leats to bypass the weir.

14 fish access schemes have been completed to ease upstream movement. Where EAW is the weir owner, they have led the work and WUF has taken the lead on privately owned structures.

On the Lugg the project has completed fish passes on Yatton Court, Ballsgate and upper Lye weirs and there have been alterations to the blockstone weirs at Crowards, Coxall and Eyton. This takes forward the work done with the fish passes at Leominster and Hampton Court built prior to the project. Salmon now have access to the Welsh headwaters for the first time in at least 30 years.

On the Arrow, fish passes have been installed on Grove Farm weir and bypass channels re-established on Mowley, Hunton and Malhollam. In addition, obstructions have been eased on the Stansbach stream, an important trout spawning stream.

At Folly farm and Glanarrow weirs, structural surveys, planning, listed building and flood risk management consents have been obtained and fish passes "built". However, the high flows of summer 2007 delayed the final "bolting down". These will now be installed in the spring of 2008 at the Foundation's expense.


Access and Economics

As with all schemes to enhance the natural environment, encouraging people to enjoy, appreciate, use but above all share concern for the rivers must be accompanied by raising awareness of the opportunities available balanced against the threats facing the rivers. The inclusion of sections of the Herefordshire Lugg and Arrow in the Wye and Usk Passport has proved to be a great success. The booklet detailing the scheme now has a circulation of over 10,000 and the availability of Herefordshire's natural resource and the Leader + Project work is a feature of the publication.

The 2006 edition of the passport included 2 Arrow beats which brought in 122 rod days. In 2007 the Passport expanded with the inclusion of 7 more Lugg and Arrow fisheries and in total they generated 278 visits. Surveys in both 2006 and 2007 within the Passport showed that 64% of the rod days were associated with a least 1 nights accommodation within the county. In 2008 a further 4 fisheries joined the scheme and early sales of vouchers in 2008 are showing considerable growth (137% over the first 2 months). It is anticipated that these beats will accommodate in excess of 800 rod days in 2008.


Achievements:

• Community groups/trusts/forums established or assisted

• 9 Environmental / cultural appraisals carried out

• 1 Community environmental / cultural activities established or assisted

• 18 Environmental advice or assistance facilities provided for business

• 3 Information facilities provided

• 11 Sites made available for tourism activity

• 2 community initiatives developed

• 50+ People involved in groups / trusts / forums on activities

• 287 People involved in studies or appraisals

• 44 People undertaking enhancement projects

• 230+ People participating in local cultural and recreational events or festivals

• 14 Environmental enhancements on historic and cultural features completed

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 2006/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2007/12/31
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 Barriers to fish migration
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Creation of fish passes
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Community Education, Teaching children about salmon lifecycle
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