Case study:The Monmouthshire, Olway and Trothy (MOAT) Project

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° 4' 35.46" N, 2° 39' 15.91" 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 In progress
Project web site http://http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/projects/moat.php
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Water quality
Country England
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
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Starting in September 2012, this project extends the type of work being carried out in Herefordshire's WHIP2 into Monmouthshire.

Olway

WUF's 2009 survey of the lower Usk tributaries found that the Olway, although clear of barriers, suffered from the effects of agricultural pollution. Water Framework Directive (WFD) failures for salmonid fish, macrophytes, phytobenthos and phosphate, in the presence of good levels of invertebrates, strongly suggest the effects of diffuse pollution, such as run off from farm yards, degraded habitat and elevated sediment levels. These are very common problems in the Olway catchment. Success in mitigating diffuse pollution is derived from engagement with the entire farming community. The project will meet the parish councils and the local schools (which most of the farmers' children or grandchildren attend) will also be involved. With this level of engagement, the uptake and contribution to our challenge fund for farm works is significantly greater. During MOAT, all the farmers within the Olway catchment will be visited and offered a free and confidential assessment. 50 will have full farm risk assessments and plans will be developed that will improve Water Body status. Where required, a quick and easy-to-access grant pool is available to bring about the proposed changes. Historically farm plans have focussed on other issues such as increasing outputs and diversity but seldom specifically water quality. The project will reduce loadings of phosphate and fine sediment and the risk of diffuse pollution occurring from each farm, improving fisheries and water bodies downstream. At least 6km of riparian fencing will also be erected to reduce riparian erosion and restore in stream habitat.

Trothy

Surveys conducted by WUF and APEM of the Trothy (a lower Wye tributary, joining at Wyesham) found that the principal pressures are from agricultural diffuse and point source pollution, habitat degradation and elevated sediment levels as a result of unregulated stock access to river banks. There is also one significant barrier to fish migration on the main stem of the lower Trothy, with others on the lower reaches of the Cwmcarfan, Hendre and Wachan brooks, preventing them being used as trout and salmon nursery areas. In the Trothy catchment the Environment Agency's officers are visiting all the farmers and will be responsible for reducing sediment and diffuse pollution while WUF will be responsible for restoring 7km of stream habitat on the upper Trothy as well as carrying out works to allow fish access.


Principal Sources of Project Funding. WUF is very grateful to the funders who have made this project possible:

Wales Water Framework Directive Funding (EAW) £42,000

Welsh Government Ecosystem Resilience and Diversity Fund £40,000*

DCWW £75,000

EU Fisheries Fund £8,000

  • £5,000 of this is reserved for invasive weeds in Wales

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 2014/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2014/12/31
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 Agricultural pollution
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Restoring rivers, Livestock fencing
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Community involvement, interacting with farmers
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