RESTORE - User contributions [en]

Case study:Tidal Dee Love my Estuary

2016-04-18T11:17:02Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Draft
}}
{{Location
|Location=53.239116, -2.9940318999999817
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Project web site url=www.cheshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/lovemyestuary
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Water quality, Urban
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Sarah
|Main contact surname=Bennett
|Contact organisation=Cheshire Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.cheshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=PPP.png
|Picture description=Pollution Prevention Pack cover
|Project summary=The Dee (N.Wales) transitional waterbody is currently at moderate potential, with levels of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrate (DIN) identified as the Reason for Not Achieving Good status. As a transitional waterbody, the vast majority of water quality issues are inherited from upstream. With only a short stretch of the River Dee sitting within our catchment partnership area, we focussed on reducing water pollution on the small coastal waterbodies sitting on the English side of the border: Finchetts Gutter, Shotwick Brook and Burton Brook, as well as the unclassified land bordering the eastern coast of the Estuary (West Wirral), which features a designated Bathing Water at West Kirby. The Estuary features designated Shellfish Waters (Dee (West) and Dee (East)) and is internationally important for wildlife; as reflected in its designations as an SAC, SPA and Ramsar site.

The Tidal Dee Catchment Partnership has identified misconnections and poorly managed septic tanks as a significant pollution issue within these waterbodies, particularly due to the lack of mains sewerage on Burton Brook and Shotwick Brook and due to the urban nature of Finchetts Gutter. These issues are reflected in the Reasons for Not Achieving Good Status for our 3 target waterbodies and the Dee (N.Wales) transitional waterbody. Finchetts Gutter also sits within a Nutrient Sensitive Area.

The Tidal Dee Catchment Partnership, through stakeholder engagement, has identified a general detachment from the estuary amongst local communities – particularly a lack of understanding of how personal actions affect the water environment. Learning from the successes of the Environment Agency/United Utilities/Keep Britain Tidy “Love my Beach” project, we want to use water pollution issues as a way to inspire stakeholders towards greater stewardship of the water environment as well as achieving a greater understanding of the importance of water quality on wildlife amongst local communities.

Whilst advice is available on water pollution issues with leaflets often offered, tailored advice packs for different sectors do not currently exist. Not knowing which organisation to seek what type of advice from often leads to issues with getting across simple, succinct and relevant advice.

We are aware that these issues are far from unique to this catchment, so we wish to utilise this as an opportunity to scope best practice in order to help towards the reduction of water pollution nationally.
|Monitoring surveys and results=A good coverage was achieved across all three waterbodies with nearly 80% of their total length covered by walkover surveys. This resulted in 293 recorded pollution sources, whether observed or potential. The vast majority of pollution sources noted only showed potential for impacting the waterbodies, with comparatively few (9 significant) having a significant impact on over 100 metres of watercourse.
|Lessons learn=Water pollution is a difficult topic to engage and enthuse members of the public about. More people were engaged about the topic when we held stands at already existing events that people would be going to rather than hoping people would attend an event specifically held by this project. We found that making the events aimed at homeowners targeted to families meant that more people attended and we could discuss general water management and water pollution with the adults whilst the children did craft activities. Relating water pollution to wildlife on the estuary (which is a prominent feature locally) meant it was easier to engage members of the public about the topic.

The walkover surveys were a success in gathering information to inform future delivery projects and in engaging partner organisations in Water Framework Directive project delivery.

The quality of the Pollution Prevention Pack was highly regarded by partners including stakeholders from other Catchment Partnerships. Enthusiasm for the packs has come from stakeholders in Devon, Gloucestershire, Northumberland, Derbyshire, Sussex, Shropshire and Bedfordshire. We know of two organisations from neighbouring Catchment Partnerships that are making minor amendments to the electronic version so they can use them locally.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=tidal dee
}}
{{Site}}
{{Project background}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Measures}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:53:41Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trustees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047791
|WFD water body name=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Site designation=UK - Site of Special Scientific Interest
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/05/01
|Project completed=2014/10/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=965
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:47:25Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trustees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047791
|WFD water body name=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Site designation=UK - Site of Special Scientific Interest
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/05/01
|Project completed=2014/10/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=760
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:45:22Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trustees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047791
|WFD water body name=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Site designation=UK - Site of Special Scientific Interest
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=900
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:44:35Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trustees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047791
|WFD water body name=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=900
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:44:06Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trustees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047660
|WFD water body name=Relief Channel
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=900
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:42:47Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trustees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Nar upstream of Abbey Farm
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047660
|WFD water body name=Relief Channel
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=900
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:35:17Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trustees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Relief Channel
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047660
|WFD water body name=Relief Channel
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=900
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:27:39Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trus-tees
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Relief Channel
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047660
|WFD water body name=Relief Channel
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=900
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Nar Restoration Project

2016-04-05T09:26:37Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.702369, 0.63379778
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Watson
|Contact organisation=WWF-UK
|Partner organisations=Coca-Cola, Natural England, Environment Agency, Norfolk Rivers Drainage Board, Castle Acre Fishing Syndicate, West Acre Fishing Syndicate, private landowners, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Mileham Common Charity Trus-tees
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:River Nar Restoration Project
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=DSC07906.JPG
|Picture description=Large woody debris - River Nar, West Acre
|Project summary=Chalk streams are a globally rare and threatened habitat. The Nar is 42 km long, the second longest chalk stream in Norfolk and designated a SSSI. This river catchment is in a rural area with intensive arable farming being the main land use. The upper half of the river flows over chalk, whilst the lower half descends into drained fenland, making the river catchment particularly diverse in form. The river fails to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive for fish abundance, quantity and dynamics of flow. Poor morphology and poor water quality underpin this failure and require addressing. This project aims to deliver three large-scale reach restorations, improving morphology, water quality, biodiversity and hence ecosystem function.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07910.JPG
|Caption=LWD - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07914.JPG
|Caption=Island in the river bed - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07905.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=DSC07911.JPG
|Caption=Sediment deposition and woody debri - River Nar, West Acre
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Relief Channel
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Nar
|WFD water body code=GB105033047660
|WFD water body name=Relief Channel
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=900
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Morphology, Water quality
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow, Channel pattern/planform, Structure & condition of riparianzones
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Social – reduced costs of cleaning water at point of abstraction, conservation of landscape and wildlife for recreation and enjoyment of all; Economic- more sustainable food pro-duction, improved trout fisheries.
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation; Creation of new meandering channel,
|Social measures=Some maintenance of completed restored sections is carried out by local fisherman. This allows them to contribute to the health of the catchment. A sense of wider public ownership is fostered by river walks, talks and consultations. A River Nar Conservation Group has also been organised to encourage community involvement in the River Nar restoration project, where we have discussed ideas such as getting school children involved with monitoring fresh water invertebrates.
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=The Project Officer is working with farmers to help them put in place measures to retain soils and prevent run-off of nutrients and pesticides.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - River Nar
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF012 Project Briefing Note - River Nar.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - River Nar
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:Essex Healthy Headwaters River Restoration Project

2016-03-31T14:51:36Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.0017204284667, 0.58045208454132
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Iley
|Contact organisation=Essex Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.essexwt.org.uk
|Partner organisations=Essex and Suffolk Water (Northumbrian Water), Chelmer and Blackwater Catchment Partnership, NE, EA, Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation (Essex Waterways Ltd), Parish Councils and the Rural Communities Council for Essex, Landowners and farmers, the Rivers Trust, Essex County Council, Essex Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=Essexhealthy..png
|Picture description=site before works
|Project summary=This project will aim to target catchment restoration by (i) initiating changes to agricultural land management including arable reversion to extensively managed permanent grassland and broadleaved woodland (ii) creating new wetland habitats through temporary flood storage & water retention areas on farmland (iii) enhancing and maintaining river channels (iv) upgrading channels and ditches (v) improvements to agricultural soil management (vi) awareness raising for communities (vi) monitoring to demonstrate positive change and (vii) reporting and disseminating best practice.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Colne (Gt. Yeldham - Doe's Corner)
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB105037041260
|WFD water body name=Colne
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=610
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

Channel pattern/planform
|Biological quality elements=

|Physico-chemical quality elements=

|Specific mitigation=
Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank reprofiling, Channel features creation,
|Other technical measure=Farm infrastructure interventions
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Presentations to instutions, Monitoring and survey projects
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Essex Healthy Headwaters
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF031 Project Briefing Note - Essex Healthy Headwaters.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Essex Healthy Headwaters
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Welland for People and Wildlife Project

2016-03-31T14:17:05Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.47580855219412, -0.9243299625813961
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Project web site url=http://www.wellandpeoplewildlife.org.uk/
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Water quality, Urban
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Peter
|Main contact surname=Barham
|Contact organisation=Welland Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wellandriverstrust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency; Defra; University of Leicester; Harborough District Council; Welland Valley Partnership
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Before after.jpg
|Project summary=The Welland for People and Wildlife is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to restore 1.8km of the River Welland and its tributary the River Jordan, as they run through Market Harborough, Leicestershire.
This project exists to turn the eyesore the River Welland has become into a central cultural feature, improving biodiversity, water quality and Water Framework Directive status.
The Welland for People and Wildlife project strives to restore the River Welland through Market Harborough to a more natural form correcting the unsympathetic flood alleviation works which were carried out in the 1970s. This project aims to remove barriers to fish migration and improve community value without compromising flood defence.

The outcomes of the project are:
1.The return to near natural flow regimes of riffles and pools alternating in a new low flow channel.
2.Habitat restoration via the return of a natural mosaic of biotopes in riffles, pools, runs and bars
3.Biodiversity via the increase in species as a result of improved habitat diversity
4.Social and cultural benefits by recreating a recreational and educational environment for the people of the town
5.Water quality, as the biotope diversity will increase the ecological processes of the river, such as nutrient uptake
6.Ecosystem services (as a consequence of all the above)
|Monitoring surveys and results=Quality of habitats
An environment must provide idyllic conditions for the persistence of vegetation and wildlife. The restoration has delivered clearer water, with better oxygenation, and improved flow preventing silt build-ups and stagnation. There is more riparian space, allowing habitats to expand and communities to mature. Due to the partnership with the EA through their fish passage project, all impoundments to fish and eel movements have been removed, allowing free passage and mixing of populations for the entire project reach.
In addition, shallower riffled areas have become ideal for fish spawning; total number of areas suitable for spawning has increased from 12 to 52. 40 of these have been observed as actively used for spawning by Sticklebacks, Minnow, Chub and Dace.
Ongoing sampling will determine how much of an ecological recovery the river has made towards a more natural state. The objective of ‘Improving the habitats’ is considered fulfilled, however this will be an ongoing improvement as the restoration works mature.
Biodiversity
Both marginal and emergent plants have thrived. Varieties are more diverse and abundant along the water’s edge. Surveys show the previously 2 dominant species have been reduced, and now there are 10 prevailing species. Several species have naturally returned indicating the environment is now more favourable to support diverse aquatic life.
There has been an increase in the diversity of fish species; however decreases in total catch numbers and decrease in body size. With the barrier removal, the fish are no longer restricted and so have spread into the newly opened areas. Fish (and eels) have been seen further upstream than before, and in large numbers. Trout are freely able to connect with upstream wild populations. However, during surveys of the restored reach, fewer numbers are caught – this is thought to be due to 2 factors; 1) space - weirs before created a ‘catching fish in a barrel’ scenario, 2) predators – Otters have been frequently using the restored river to fish, and are thought to have a holt nearby.
There has been an increase in species richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Particular improvement is seen in the riffle habitat where diversity, abundance and biomass have increased for aquatic macroinvertebrates.
There is now a much wider variety of habitats. The original 4 dominant habitats types have been reduced or replaced with other key varieties, giving a total of 13 types. Homogenous stretches where 1 or 2 habitats dominated have been replaced with multiple types of habitat, distributed more evenly between types. In addition, there has been a decrease in the less beneficial habitats (for metabolic rate processing) of cobble, emergent and boulder, with an increase in valuable marginal, submerged, algae and woody material habitats.
There has been an average increase of 1.6mg/l/s-1 of oxygen within the restored reach. This is due to an increase in photosynthesis and a decrease in the sediment oxygen demand.
The objective of ‘Increasing the biodiversity of the river Welland through Market Harborough’ is considered part achieved, but study is ongoing for a 5-year period to thoroughly assess the impact.

Flow diversity
The flow seen across the whole project reach has diversified. The removal of weirs and insertion of riffle-pool habitat has led to a replacement of stagnated monotonous flow with fast paced riffles and slow gentle pools.
Water clarity has improved due to a reduction in the stagnation effect. Stagnation before the works had led to suspended sediment dropping out behind weirs, and encouraging weed growth across the channel. The works creating a continuous flow has removed this issue, and reduced monoculture weed choking the channel.
Similarly, measures taken to reduce erosion risk (coir matting, gravel topping, planting and woody lattice deflectors) have led to a reduction in sediment lost in the reach, resulting in clearer water. The objective of ‘reducing the stagnation and sluggish flow of the river’ is considered fulfilled but study is ongoing to assess the geomorphological response.
Visual aesthetics
Before works the river was deep-sided, stagnant, muddy watered ditch. Now the river is clear, diversely flowing channel with shallowed margins abundant with variety of flowering and non-flowering aquatic plants.
Birds have become more conspicuous users of the river. Common birds are seen bathing and hunting insects from the surface. Birds such as Grey Wagtail have increased in abundance, including the number of breeding pairs. Kingfishers have been sighted frequently, nesting in some of the uncovered banks, and hunting in the now clear shallow waters. Otters have also been frequent users of the river, enjoying the improved fishing, and easy access into and out of the river.
All these aspects have led to positive and complimentary feedback from individuals and community groups concerning the visual transformation of the river.
Community use and interaction
Community involvement during the design stages and a subsequent sense of community ownership was seen as a key goal for project success. Multiple evening discussion and group meetings drew gatherings between 50-150 people. Physical activities were also popular, attracting between 8-40 people, and a Bioblitz drew hundreds of visitors over 24 hours. Wildlife watching groups have formed for the local Kingfishers, Otters and general wildlife with Facebook pages to post images and updates.
The river is now widely regarded as an amenity to preserve, evidenced by maintenance promises offered by community groups, including regular river litter picks. Landowners for every section of the river also agreed by contract to maintain the upkeep of the restored river as required.
Nine primary schools have been involved in pond dipping and river lessons; also a secondary school has been involved through assembly demonstrations and presentations. Two Scouting groups have taken part in wildlife walks, bird box building and painting. The use of the river for educational purposes will continue - with easier and safer access to the river installed throughout the Town. Groups and individuals are able to access the river without difficulty, demonstrated by more children using the river to play post restoration works.
|Lessons learn=A lack of flexibility in the consents meant that a design needed to be rigid before continuation. A better understanding of what is needed from a third party with such limitations in money, availability and future maintenance and accountability would have avoided this issue. To ensure success, we engaged geotechnical services in the design process. Although our evidence was clear from surveys, we needed additional agreement of civil engineers for the EA to be confident our design was appropriate.
Weather was an issue as rain meant rapid water level rises due to the large run-off volumes in the urban area. In addition, numerous weir structures held back large quantities of water. To overcome this, the weir boards were demolished first to allow a free flow of water, and drain the excess ponded areas within reach. Despite a headwater, without first removing the weirs, the water and silt deposits were too deep for safe working.
Working in an urban environment was a challenge due to the surrounding infrastructure and cables. Designs had to be flexible to ensure adjustments to account for this. In addition, there were many landowners (40 individuals) to track down and discuss access and maintenance agreements.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Welland catchment.JPG
|Caption=Welland catchment
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=The rivers Welland and Jordan.JPG
|Caption=The rivers Welland and Jordan in Market Harborough
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Welland
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Welland and its tributary the River Jordan (Market Harborough area)
|WFD water body code=GB105031045630
|WFD water body name=Welland
|Reference morphology=Pool-riffle
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Urban
}}
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=1800
|Project started=2012/01/01
|Works started=2014/02/03
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=790
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund,
|Investigation and design cost category=10 - 50 k€
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=UoL
|Investigation and design Other contact forename=David
|Investigation and design Other contact surname=Harper
|Stakeholder1 engagement cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=WRT
|Works1 and supervision cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Aquascience
|Post-project1 management and maintenance cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=WRT
|Monitoring1 cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Monitoring Lead organisation=WRT/UoL
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration,Flood risk management,Impoundments (not hydropower), urbanisation
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Quantity & dynamics of flow
|Biological quality elements=Fish, Macrophytes, Macroalgae, Invertebrates,
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Pool creation; berm creation from pool arising; gravel placement for riffles; creation of low flow channel; opening of cut-off meanders; marginal planting
|Floodplain / River corridor=Removal of weirs and creation of a new 2-stage channel, with correctly-sized meander spacing and habitat mosaics (riffle, pool, runs, bars) in the low flow channel
|Planform / Channel pattern=Meander pattern created by modifying low flow channel bed with berm building
|Management interventions=Planting wildflower mixes
|Social measures=Community Events; River open days; River Walks; Bioblitz event; Education events; School Tours
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Community involvement before and during the project will ensure that the citizens are aware of the river, enhanced by information boards along the Riverside walk and the involvement of local schools and societies.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row
|Element=Quantity & dynamics of flow
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=Yes
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row
|Element=Continuity for organisms
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=Yes
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row
|Element=Channel pattern/planform
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=Yes
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row
|Element=Width & depth variation
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row
|Element=Continuity of sediment transport
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=Yes
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row
|Element=Quantity & dynamics of flow
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Macrophytes
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Phytoplankton: Blooms
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Invertebrates: Diversity
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Invertebrates: Abundance
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Inconclusive
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=Oxygen balance
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=PH
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=Temperature
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Deterioration
}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=Transparency
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=Salinity
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=Nutrient concentrations
|Monitored before=Yes
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=www.wellandriverstrust.org.uk/
|Description=The Welland Rivers Trust is a charitable organisation, which works with all relevant stakeholders and partner or-ganisations to ensure that our restoration project provides benefits both people and wildlife in the whole river basin.
}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=twitter.com/WellandTrust
|Description=Twitter Accounts includes updates of projects the Trust is involved in
}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=www.facebook.com/WellandTrust/?ref=hl
|Description=Includes photographs and video footage of all project works. Has discussion threads and welcomes photo submissions
}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:Cumbria River Restoration Strategy

2016-03-30T14:40:10Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.5772323, -2.7974834999999984
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Becky Gray
|Main contact surname=& Olly Southgate
|Contact organisation=Natural England & Environment Agency
|Partner organisations=Eden Rivers Trust, West Cumbria Rivers Trust, South Cumbria Rivers Trust,
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project summary=The Cumbria River Restoration Strategy was developed to help deliver the joint Natural England and Environment Agency obligation to improve the quality and function of the Eden, Derwent and Kent SSSI/SAC catchments. This partnership functions by working with the River Trusts (Eden, West Cumbria and South Cumbria respectively) who plan and deliver these projects in their respective catchments. Most of the rivers within these catchments are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). These are recognised as being the best examples of this type of river throughout Europe for the river habitat and the species they support. Because of their importance for conservation, they are designated as Protected Areas under WFD. WFD requires ‘Measures’ to be put in place
to deliver ‘favourable condition’ for each Protected Area. Favourable condition includes restoring near natural processes to the river which includes flow and sediment transport.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site}}
{{Project background}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Measures}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The River Deerness Project 2

2016-03-30T12:25:13Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.781088119621074, -1.613616943359375
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Project web site url=http://www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/content/deernessrestoration
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=http://www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Durham County Council, Durham University
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:The River Deerness Project
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=The Old Durham Beck catchment, to the east of Durham City and covering 55 km2, has been heavily modified by mine workings and railway infrastructure and is one of the most intensively farmed Wear tributaries. It is categorised as having moderate to poor ecological status, failing for fish, ammonia and phosphate. Walkovers identified a series of culverts obstructing fish passage. In November 2011 approximately 50 congregating salmon were observed unable to make their way upstream.

The outcomes of the project are the following: enhanced habitat connectivity throughout both catchments allowing all fish species, migratory and non-migratory, maximum scope to spawn and feed; improved knowledge of fish populations and behaviours through baseline and postimplementation monitoring and evaluation; progress toward/achievement of Good Ecological Status and focus on any residual water quality issues required to achieve good status; establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be extended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Wear Rivers Trust operates fish and inverte-brate surveys to assess fish populations and water health in both catchments. Under CRF a Durham University PhD student, with WRT and volunteer support, will survey below and above each obstruc-tion both before and after restoration activities to measure impacts on those animal groups. Changes in invertebrate communities are not expected as a direct result of the restoration activities but they can inform on the wider food web for fish feeding opportunities, and provide biotic indices of water quality, giving wider insight into local environmental quality. Waste water management is significant across the Lower Wear system, including these two catchments. Supplementary projects, based on a separate volunteer walkover programme, will be developed under the auspices of the Wear River Catchment Management Plan to identify and address point and diffuse sources of pollution, in order to augment CRF actions for improvement to fish movement within these catchments.

}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
}}
{{Site
|Name=Old Durham Beck
|WFD water body code=GB103024077551
|WFD water body name=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Water quality, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms
|Biological quality elements=Phytobenthos, Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations
}}
{{Measures}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Invertebrates
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=Nutrient concentrations
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NO006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Deerness
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF020 Project Briefing Note - Deerness.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Deerness
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The River Deerness Project

2016-03-30T12:25:07Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.776533980091, -1.6105270385742
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Project web site url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/content/deernessrestoration
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Durham County Council, Durham University
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Picture description=Cornsay Colliery culvert
|Project summary=The Deerness catchment, located west of Durham City, covers 53 km2 and includes the small colliery towns of Ushaw Moor, Esh Winning and Cornsay. Land use is largely agricultural, with woodland cover and several reclaimed open cast and landfill sites. A significant part of the catchment fails the Water Framework Directive for fish, due to the cumulative effects of barriers to the upstream and downstream movement of all fish species and also because of water quality issues (principally phosphate) reflected in altered phytobenthos.

The outcomes of the project are the following: enhanced habitat connectivity throughout both catchments allowing all fish species, migratory and non-migratory, maximum scope to spawn and feed; improved knowledge of fish populations and behaviours through baseline and post-implementation monitoring and evaluation; progress toward/achievement of Good Ecological Status and focus on any residual water quality issues required to achieve good status; establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be ex-tended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Wear Rivers Trust operates fish and invertebrate surveys to assess fish populations and water health in both catchments. Under CRF a Durham University PhD student, with WRT and volunteer support, will survey below and above each obstruction both before and after restoration activities to measure impacts on those animal groups. Changes in invertebrate communities are not expected as a direct result of the restoration activities but they can inform on the wider food web for fish feeding opportunities, and provide biotic indices of water quality, giving wider insight into local environmental quality. Waste water management is significant across the Lower Wear system, including these two catchments. Supplementary projects, based on a separate volunteer walkover programme, will be developed under the auspices of the Wear River Catchment Management Plan to identify and address point and diffuse sources of pollution, in order to augment CRF actions for improvement to fish movement within these catchments
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Caption=Cornsay Colliery culvert
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Broadgate Ford.jpg
|Caption=Broadgate Ford
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
}}
{{Site
|Name=Deerness
|WFD water body code=GB103024077551
|WFD water body name=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Water quality, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms
|Biological quality elements=Phytobenthos, Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Phosphate
}}
{{Measures
|Planform / Channel pattern=Remove obstacles in the riverbed, Removing barriers to water organisms migration in the river
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be extended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=No
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NO006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Deerness
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF020 Project Briefing Note - Deerness.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Deerness
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Rivers Return; Restoring the Kirklees Brook, River Irwell

2016-03-30T12:11:53Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=53.6188926696777, -2.33345293998718
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Hydromorphology, Social benefits
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Matthew
|Main contact surname=Schofield
|Contact organisation=Irwell Rivers Trust
|Partner organisations=APEM ltd, Bury Council, Bury and District Angling Society, Trust for Conservation Volunteers, Environment Agency, Friends of Kirklees Valley, Holcombe Moore Heritage Group, Oxford Archaeology North, Ramsbottom Angling Association, Salford University, Tottington Civic Society
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Kirklees.png
|Picture description=A culvert and a weir on the Kirklees Brook
|Project summary=The Irwell Rivers Trust and partners aim to deliver a range of weir removal, culvert removal and fish easement projects on the Kirklees Brook to improve the Brooks WFD HMWB status (to Good)
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Kirklees Brook
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB112069064610
|WFD water body name=Kirklees Brook
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=410
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

Continuity for organisms, Channel pattern/planform
|Biological quality elements=
Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=

|Specific mitigation=
Barriers to fish migration, Impoundments (not hydropower)
|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

|Floodplain / River corridor=
Weir/barrier removing, Deculverting
|Planform / Channel pattern=
Channel features creation,
|Other technical measure=

|Management interventions=

|Social measures=
Public access, Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW008 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Kirklees Brook
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF024 Project Briefing Note - Kirklees Brook.pdf
|Description=CRF Project Briefing note - Kirklees Brook
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:The Pow Beck Improvement Project

2016-03-30T10:24:25Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.822509765625, -2.92742705345153
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Will
|Main contact surname=Cleasby
|Contact organisation=Eden Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.edenriverstrust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency, Eden Demonstration Test Catchment, National Farmers Union, Catchment Sensitive Farming
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=P1010231.JPG
|Picture description=Soil husbandry workshops in the Pow Beck catchment
|Project summary=Work on the Pow Beck will revolve around mitigation of diffuse agricultural pollution, more specifically nutrient and sediment loss from the farming system. The first phase of the project will be based around engaging the farming community on the Pow Beck and providing a range of workshops that inform them about diffuse pollution and the work that can be done to address it through the project.

The project will then seek to address issues through a number of methods working in conjunction with the farm business.
The work involved includes improving farm infrastructure or installing riverbank fencing and planting trees. The project is also changing the working practices of businesses in the area by using GPS equipment to improve the accuracy of fertiliser spreading and offering machinery to help reduce the amount of soil compaction.
The project therefore aims to take a whole farm approach to diffuse pollution reduction.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Eden Demonstration Test Catchment (EdenDTC) project will carry out monitoring of stream water quality and biology. This includes monitoring nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and water volume.
Additionally before and after photographs will be taken of project sites and electrofishing surveys take place within the catchment.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1428.JPG
|Caption=Pow Beck fencing and tree planting
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 0384.jpg
|Caption=GPS equipment
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1675.JPG
|Caption=Drain tracing to inform infrastructure improvement
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1130.jpg
|Caption=Fencing
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Pow SCIMAP.jpg
|Caption=SCIMAP erosion risk
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Bank Before Work - June.JPG
|Caption=Before installation of woody debris
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Bank After Work - July.JPG
|Caption=After installation of woody debris
}}

{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Pow Beck (Eden and Esk)
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB102076073780
|WFD water body name=Pow Beck
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=480
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=

|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Other technical measure=Farm infrastructure interventions,
|Management interventions=Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Economic benefits
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW011 monitroing framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF001 Project Briefing Note - Pow Beck.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Pow Beck
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Improving water quality in Loweswater

2016-03-16T12:49:12Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.5832290649414, -3.35668659210205
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Vikki
|Main contact surname=Salas
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=National Trust, Environment Agency, Natural England, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Loweswater.jpg
|Project summary=To ensure that Loweswater achieves good ecological status under the WFD, diffuse pollution will be reduced through changes to farming practices and restoration of tributaries, and methods will be trialled to reduce algal populations within the lake including ultrasound and wind-powered aerating and mixing equipment.

The project is ongoing thanks to funding from the National Trust to allow continued monitoring of the site.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Dub (Park) Beck
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB31228986
|WFD water body name=Loweswater
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=427
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund, National Trust
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Phytoplankton
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=

|Management interventions=
Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Loweswater
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF035 Project Briefing Note Loweswater DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Loweswater
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Improving water quality in Loweswater

2016-03-16T12:44:37Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.5832290649414, -3.35668659210205
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Vikki
|Main contact surname=Salas
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=National Trust, Environment Agency, Natural England, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Loweswater.jpg
|Project summary=To ensure that Loweswater achieves good ecological status under the WFD, diffuse pollution will be reduced through changes to farming practices and restoration of tributaries, and methods will be trialled to reduce algal populations within the lake including ultrasound and wind-powered aerating and mixing equipment.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Dub (Park) Beck
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB31228986
|WFD water body name=Loweswater
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=427
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund, National Trust
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Phytoplankton
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=

|Management interventions=
Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Loweswater
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF035 Project Briefing Note Loweswater DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Loweswater
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Improving water quality in Loweswater

2016-03-16T12:43:24Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.5832290649414, -3.35668659210205
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Vikki
|Main contact surname=Salas
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=National Trust, Environment Agency, Natural England, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Loweswater.jpg
|Project summary=To ensure that Loweswater achieves good ecological status under the WFD, diffuse pollution will be reduced through changes to farming practices and restoration of tributaries, and methods will be trialled to reduce algal populations within the lake including ultrasound and wind-powered aerating and mixing equipment.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Dub (Park) Beck
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB31228986
|WFD water body name=Loweswater
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=350
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Phytoplankton
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=

|Management interventions=
Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Loweswater
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF035 Project Briefing Note Loweswater DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Loweswater
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Improving water quality in Loweswater

2016-03-16T12:39:58Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.5832290649414, -3.35668659210205
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Vikki
|Main contact surname=Salas
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=National Trust, Environment Agency, Natural England, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Loweswater.jpg
|Project summary=To ensure that Loweswater achieves good ecological status under the WFD, diffuse pollution will be reduced through changes to farming practices and restoration of tributaries, and methods will be trialled to reduce algal populations within the lake including ultrasound and wind-powered aerating and mixing equipment.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Dub (Park) Beck
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB112075070360
|WFD water body name=Dub (Park) Beck
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=350
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Phytoplankton
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=

|Management interventions=
Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Loweswater
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF035 Project Briefing Note Loweswater DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Loweswater
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Upper Welland Water Friendly Farming Project

2016-03-15T16:58:42Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.6379318237304, -0.920213162899017
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Chris
|Main contact surname=Stoate
|Contact organisation=Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
|Partner organisations=Pond Conservation, York University, Oxford Brookes University, Sheffield University, Syngenta, Welland Rivers Trust, Anglian Water
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=3-6SiltTrap.JPG
|Picture description=Sediment accumulation behind a WFF project ditch dam (Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust)
|Project summary=Water Friendly Farming Project is a multi-partner national demonstration conceived by Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and Pond Conservation. It seeks to deliver catchment scale benefits to the rural water environment, together with new information about the practical effectiveness of the measures employed in the predominantly agricultural landscape. The project focuses on three 10 km2 upper catchments, and employs a Control, Impact, Before, After (BACI) approach, where two of the three catchments will receive mitigation measures, the third will act as a control.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Eye Brook
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB105031050550
|WFD water body name=Eye Brook
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=1000 - 5000 k€
|Total1 cost=1,220
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Invertebrates, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations, Specific synthetic pollutants
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident,
|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

Reduce diffuse pollution,
|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=
UK BAP habitat creation/restoration, Non BAP habitat creation/restoration, Farm infrastructure interventions,
|Management interventions=
Fencing, Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=

|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG007 monitoring framework table v2.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Upper Welland
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF013 Project Brieifng Note - Water Friendly Farming.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Upper Welland
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Upper Welland Water Friendly Farming Project

2016-03-15T16:57:58Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.6379318237304, -0.920213162899017
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Chris
|Main contact surname=Stoate
|Contact organisation=Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
|Partner organisations=Pond Conservation, York University, Oxford Brookes University, Sheffield University, Syngenta, Welland Rivers Trust, Anglian Water
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=3-6SiltTrap.JPG
|Picture description=Sediment accumulation behind a WFF project ditch dam (Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust)
|Project summary=Water Friendly Farming Project is a multi-partner national demonstration conceived by Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and Pond Conservation. It seeks to deliver catchment scale benefits to the rural water environment, together with new information about the practical effectiveness of the measures employed in the predominantly agricultural landscape. The project focuses on three 10 km2 upper catchments, and employs a Control, Impact, Before, After (BACI) approach, where two of the three catchments will receive mitigation measures, the third will act as a control.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Eye Brook
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB105031050550
|WFD water body name=Eye Brook
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Invertebrates, Macrophytes
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations, Specific synthetic pollutants
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident,
|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

Reduce diffuse pollution,
|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=
UK BAP habitat creation/restoration, Non BAP habitat creation/restoration, Farm infrastructure interventions,
|Management interventions=
Fencing, Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=

|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG007 monitoring framework table v2.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Upper Welland
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF013 Project Brieifng Note - Water Friendly Farming.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Upper Welland
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Essex Healthy Headwaters River Restoration Project

2016-03-15T16:56:18Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.0017204284667, 0.58045208454132
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Iley
|Contact organisation=Essex Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.essexwt.org.uk
|Partner organisations=Essex and Suffolk Water (Northumbrian Water), Chelmer and Blackwater Catchment Partnership, NE, EA, Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation (Essex Waterways Ltd), Parish Councils and the Rural Communities Council for Essex, Landowners and farmers, the Rivers Trust, Essex County Council, Essex Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Essexhealthy..png
|Picture description=site before works
|Project summary=This project will aim to target catchment restoration by (i) initiating changes to agricultural land management including arable reversion to extensively managed permanent grassland and broadleaved woodland (ii) creating new wetland habitats through temporary flood storage & water retention areas on farmland (iii) enhancing and maintaining river channels (iv) upgrading channels and ditches (v) improvements to agricultural soil management (vi) awareness raising for communities (vi) monitoring to demonstrate positive change and (vii) reporting and disseminating best practice.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Colne (Gt. Yeldham - Doe's Corner)
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB105037041260
|WFD water body name=Colne
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=610
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

Channel pattern/planform
|Biological quality elements=

|Physico-chemical quality elements=

|Specific mitigation=
Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank reprofiling, Channel features creation,
|Other technical measure=Farm infrastructure interventions
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Presentations to instutions, Monitoring and survey projects
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Essex Healthy Headwaters
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF031 Project Briefing Note - Essex Healthy Headwaters.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Essex Healthy Headwaters
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Essex Healthy Headwaters River Restoration Project

2016-03-15T16:55:51Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.0017204284667, 0.58045208454132
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Mark
|Main contact surname=Iley
|Contact organisation=Essex Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.essexwt.org.uk
|Partner organisations=Essex and Suffolk Water (Northumbrian Water), Chelmer and Blackwater Catchment Partnership, NE, EA, Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation (Essex Waterways Ltd), Parish Councils and the Rural Communities Council for Essex, Landowners and farmers, the Rivers Trust, Essex County Council, Essex Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Essexhealthy..png
|Picture description=site before works
|Project summary=This project will aim to target catchment restoration by (i) initiating changes to agricultural land management including arable reversion to extensively managed permanent grassland and broadleaved woodland (ii) creating new wetland habitats through temporary flood storage & water retention areas on farmland (iii) enhancing and maintaining river channels (iv) upgrading channels and ditches (v) improvements to agricultural soil management (vi) awareness raising for communities (vi) monitoring to demonstrate positive change and (vii) reporting and disseminating best practice.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Colne (Gt. Yeldham - Doe's Corner)
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB105037041260
|WFD water body name=Colne
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

Channel pattern/planform
|Biological quality elements=

|Physico-chemical quality elements=

|Specific mitigation=
Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank reprofiling, Channel features creation,
|Other technical measure=Farm infrastructure interventions
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Presentations to instutions, Monitoring and survey projects
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=ANG019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Essex Healthy Headwaters
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF031 Project Briefing Note - Essex Healthy Headwaters.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Essex Healthy Headwaters
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:River Rea Restoration Project

2016-03-15T16:50:03Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.45182497956459, -2.4049758911132812
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Emma
|Main contact surname=Buckingham
|Contact organisation=Severn River Trust
|Contact organisation url=severnriverstrust.com/
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Picture description=Project Area
|Project summary=Many watercourses within the River Rea Catchment are failing to meet the required standards under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) due to failing fish numbers. The River Rea has long been known as a catchment in serious decline as a result of sedimentation, poor agricultural practices and fish migration barriers. The Severn Rivers Trust walkover surveys of the River Rea, confirmed that suspended sediment load is seen to be impacting on the ecological health of the river and a major cause of fish failure. Impacts such as agricultural run-off from fields and bank erosion caused by farm animals are major contributors to an excessive quantity of sediment entering the river system. Also good riparian habitats are in decline due to over shading and over mature and diseased alders dying and falling into the river causing excessive blockages and bank erosion scars.

'''Planned outcommes
*Reduced agricultural run-off - reduced the in-stream sedimentation and fertiliser contamination, improved farming practices
*Improved biodiversity – improved in-stream habitats, re-established fish populations, improved invertebrate biodiversity, and control invasive species.
*Improved river water quality - reduced diffuse and point source pollution. Work towards achieving GES.
*Improved fish migration - removed un-necessary weirs, re-established spawning grounds.
*Reduced lateral river erosion and poaching - installed revetments, reduce poaching by reducing livestock access to watercourses.
*Improved flow regime – Reduced abstraction and or augmentation, plus wetland creation.
*Social - improved environment for recreation, promote interest and local community involvement in river restoration and healthy environment.
*Economic - improved fisheries, introduced farmers to the 'Passport Scheme', reduced farmer’s expenditure on fertilisers, pesticides, fuel and top soil replacement.
*Flood Defence – Create wetlands and wet woodlands and reduce sediment to mitigate flood risk. Raise flood risk awareness.

The River Rea restoration Project is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to improve watercourses in areas of the Rea Catchment that are affected by sedimentation, diffuse pollution, degraded habitat and obstructions to fish passage. The restoration project on the Rea will help to remediate these issues, by working with farmers to encourage the installation of cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives. These include coppicing of riparian habitats, designating buffer strips between the fields and rivers and fencing and re-establishing eroded banks. The Severn Rivers Trust aims to improve the habitat and connectivity in order to encourage a sustainable return to natural river processes and reduce diffuse pollution from farmland to ensure that the failing water bodies achieve Good Ecological Status under the WFD.

Through restoration work, the project will address issues
including:
* Sediment which has a direct adverse effect on water quality.
* Barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching
habitat that they should be present in.
* Interrupted natural downstream movement of substrate which
reduces spawning habitat for salmonids.
* Poor in-channel and riparian habitat for riverine species
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Caption=River Rea Restoration Project Area
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site
|Name=River Rea Catchment
|WFD water body code=GB109054044820
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=1000 - 5000 k€
|Total1 cost=1084,657
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Agriculture, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Substrate conditions
|Biological quality elements=Fish
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank improvement,
|Floodplain / River corridor=Removal of barriers
|Management interventions=Riparian Management to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing bank side collapse (another main source of sediment)
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Community engagement is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=MID003 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Rea
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF015 Project Briefing Note - River Rea.pdf
|Description=Briefing Note
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=severnriverstrust.com/
|Description=The Severn Rivers Trust is an independent environmental charity established to secure the preservation, protection, development and improvement of the rivers, streams, watercourses and water bodies in the Severn catchment, and to advance the education of the public in the management of water and the wider environment.
}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=www.riverrea.com/
|Description=The aim of the Rea Catchment Partnership is to restore, protect and sustain a healthy river system within the Rea Catchment.
}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information
|Information='''Description of Works
In order that we solve the problems in the Rea catchment, the River Rea Restoration aims to advise and assist farmers and land owners in applying the correct and relevant practices and tackle the issues by delivering the following measures:
*Fencing - where agricultural practices have been identified to be causing the watercourse to fail to meet WFD standards, riparian fencing and associated drinking points will result in multiple benefits. The poaching of riverbanks by livestock will be reduced,as will the associated excess sediment inputs. Vegetation will become re-established along the riverbanks, therefore increasing riparian habitat and biodiversity. This will result in the establishment of a buffer zone that will reduce the amount of nutr ient runoff that enters the watercourse from farmland and roads.
*Reconnecting habitat - where an obstruction to fish passage exists within the river channel, the project will look to remove it, or at the very least, make it passable. This will not only open up more habitat to migratory fish, but where removal occurs it will
also return the sediment movement to a more natural regime.
*Riparian Management – Bankside trees that have not been cut or coppiced for several years and have been allowed to grow up can shade riverbanks, restricting sunlight to under-storey vegetation and result in bare ground under the trees which is then
susceptible to erosion. The aim is to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing
bank side collapse (another main source of sediment).
*Community engagement - this is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach. We will increase and improve community engagement and establish a sense of ownership and responsibility of their rivers through active groups for future improvements and monitoring.

'''What will success look like?
As a charitable organisation, the Severn Rivers Trust want to work with farmers, landowners and other associated partner
organisations to ensure that our priorities are aligned in order to
achieve land management solutions that benefit both people
and the environment. Through education, we hope that farmers
and landowners will take ownership of the issues affecting their
watercourses, ensuring that they understand their direct and
indirect dependence on these natural resources and the
services they provide. Our principal aim is to see watercourses
in the Rea area achieve Good Ecological Status under the Water Framework Directive. This will mean a return to natural flow
regimes, improved water quality, increased riverine habitat and reconnected habitat, ultimately resulting in a better river
environment that can sustain greater biodiversity.
}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Rea Restoration Project

2016-03-15T16:20:42Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.45182497956459, -2.4049758911132812
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Emma
|Main contact surname=Buckingham
|Contact organisation=Severn River Trust
|Contact organisation url=severnriverstrust.com/
|Partner organisations=NShropshire Hills AONB, Shrewsbury Anglers Federation, Hook-a-gate fishing club, Pontesbury fishing club, EA, Shrophire Council and Rea IDB, NE
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Picture description=Project Area
|Project summary=Many watercourses within the River Rea Catchment are failing to meet the required standards under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) due to failing fish numbers. The River Rea has long been known as a catchment in serious decline as a result of sedimentation, poor agricultural practices and fish migration barriers. The Severn Rivers Trust walkover surveys of the River Rea, confirmed that suspended sediment load is seen to be impacting on the ecological health of the river and a major cause of fish failure. Impacts such as agricultural run-off from fields and bank erosion caused by farm animals are major contributors to an excessive quantity of sediment entering the river system. Also good riparian habitats are in decline due to over shading and over mature and diseased alders dying and falling into the river causing excessive blockages and bank erosion scars.

'''Planned outcommes
*Reduced agricultural run-off - reduced the in-stream sedimentation and fertiliser contamination, improved farming practices
*Improved biodiversity – improved in-stream habitats, re-established fish populations, improved invertebrate biodiversity, and control invasive species.
*Improved river water quality - reduced diffuse and point source pollution. Work towards achieving GES.
*Improved fish migration - removed un-necessary weirs, re-established spawning grounds.
*Reduced lateral river erosion and poaching - installed revetments, reduce poaching by reducing livestock access to watercourses.
*Improved flow regime – Reduced abstraction and or augmentation, plus wetland creation.
*Social - improved environment for recreation, promote interest and local community involvement in river restoration and healthy environment.
*Economic - improved fisheries, introduced farmers to the 'Passport Scheme', reduced farmer’s expenditure on fertilisers, pesticides, fuel and top soil replacement.
*Flood Defence – Create wetlands and wet woodlands and reduce sediment to mitigate flood risk. Raise flood risk awareness.

The River Rea restoration Project is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to improve watercourses in areas of the Rea Catchment that are affected by sedimentation, diffuse pollution, degraded habitat and obstructions to fish passage. The restoration project on the Rea will help to remediate these issues, by working with farmers to encourage the installation of cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives. These include coppicing of riparian habitats, designating buffer strips between the fields and rivers and fencing and re-establishing eroded banks. The Severn Rivers Trust aims to improve the habitat and connectivity in order to encourage a sustainable return to natural river processes and reduce diffuse pollution from farmland to ensure that the failing water bodies achieve Good Ecological Status under the WFD.

Through restoration work, the project will address issues
including:
* Sediment which has a direct adverse effect on water quality.
* Barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching
habitat that they should be present in.
* Interrupted natural downstream movement of substrate which
reduces spawning habitat for salmonids.
* Poor in-channel and riparian habitat for riverine species
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Caption=River Rea Restoration Project Area
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site
|Name=River Rea Catchment
|WFD water body code=GB109054044820
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=1000 - 5000 k€
|Total1 cost=1084,657
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Agriculture, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Substrate conditions
|Biological quality elements=Fish
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank improvement,
|Floodplain / River corridor=Removal of barriers
|Management interventions=Riparian Management to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing bank side collapse (another main source of sediment)
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Community engagement is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=MID003 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Rea
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF015 Project Briefing Note - River Rea.pdf
|Description=Briefing Note
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=severnriverstrust.com/
|Description=The Severn Rivers Trust is an independent environmental charity established to secure the preservation, protection, development and improvement of the rivers, streams, watercourses and water bodies in the Severn catchment, and to advance the education of the public in the management of water and the wider environment.
}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=www.riverrea.com/
|Description=The aim of the Rea Catchment Partnership is to restore, protect and sustain a healthy river system within the Rea Catchment.
}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information
|Information='''Description of Works
In order that we solve the problems in the Rea catchment, the River Rea Restoration aims to advise and assist farmers and land owners in applying the correct and relevant practices and tackle the issues by delivering the following measures:
*Fencing - where agricultural practices have been identified to be causing the watercourse to fail to meet WFD standards, riparian fencing and associated drinking points will result in multiple benefits. The poaching of riverbanks by livestock will be reduced,as will the associated excess sediment inputs. Vegetation will become re-established along the riverbanks, therefore increasing riparian habitat and biodiversity. This will result in the establishment of a buffer zone that will reduce the amount of nutr ient runoff that enters the watercourse from farmland and roads.
*Reconnecting habitat - where an obstruction to fish passage exists within the river channel, the project will look to remove it, or at the very least, make it passable. This will not only open up more habitat to migratory fish, but where removal occurs it will
also return the sediment movement to a more natural regime.
*Riparian Management – Bankside trees that have not been cut or coppiced for several years and have been allowed to grow up can shade riverbanks, restricting sunlight to under-storey vegetation and result in bare ground under the trees which is then
susceptible to erosion. The aim is to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing
bank side collapse (another main source of sediment).
*Community engagement - this is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach. We will increase and improve community engagement and establish a sense of ownership and responsibility of their rivers through active groups for future improvements and monitoring.

'''What will success look like?
As a charitable organisation, the Severn Rivers Trust want to work with farmers, landowners and other associated partner
organisations to ensure that our priorities are aligned in order to
achieve land management solutions that benefit both people
and the environment. Through education, we hope that farmers
and landowners will take ownership of the issues affecting their
watercourses, ensuring that they understand their direct and
indirect dependence on these natural resources and the
services they provide. Our principal aim is to see watercourses
in the Rea area achieve Good Ecological Status under the Water Framework Directive. This will mean a return to natural flow
regimes, improved water quality, increased riverine habitat and reconnected habitat, ultimately resulting in a better river
environment that can sustain greater biodiversity.
}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Rea Restoration Project

2016-03-15T16:02:24Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.45182497956459, -2.4049758911132812
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Emma
|Main contact surname=Buckingham
|Contact organisation=Severn River Trust
|Contact organisation url=severnriverstrust.com/
|Partner organisations=NShropshire Hills AONB, Shrewsbury Anglers Federation, Hook-a-gate fishing club, Pontesbury fishing club, EA, Shrophire Council and Rea IDB, NE
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Picture description=Project Area
|Project summary=Many watercourses within the River Rea Catchment are failing to meet the required standards under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) due to failing fish numbers. The River Rea has long been known as a catchment in serious decline as a result of sedimentation, poor agricultural practices and fish migration barriers. The Severn Rivers Trust walkover surveys of the River Rea, confirmed that suspended sediment load is seen to be impacting on the ecological health of the river and a major cause of fish failure. Impacts such as agricultural run-off from fields and bank erosion caused by farm animals are major contributors to an excessive quantity of sediment entering the river system. Also good riparian habitats are in decline due to over shading and over mature and diseased alders dying and falling into the river causing excessive blockages and bank erosion scars.

'''Planned outcommes
*Reduced agricultural run-off - reduced the in-stream sedimentation and fertiliser contamination, improved farming practices
*Improved biodiversity – improved in-stream habitats, re-established fish populations, improved invertebrate biodiversity, and control invasive species.
*Improved river water quality - reduced diffuse and point source pollution. Work towards achieving GES.
*Improved fish migration - removed un-necessary weirs, re-established spawning grounds.
*Reduced lateral river erosion and poaching - installed revetments, reduce poaching by reducing livestock access to watercourses.
*Improved flow regime – Reduced abstraction and or augmentation, plus wetland creation.
*Social - improved environment for recreation, promote interest and local community involvement in river restoration and healthy environment.
*Economic - improved fisheries, introduced farmers to the 'Passport Scheme', reduced farmer’s expenditure on fertilisers, pesticides, fuel and top soil replacement.
*Flood Defence – Create wetlands and wet woodlands and reduce sediment to mitigate flood risk. Raise flood risk awareness.

The River Rea restoration Project is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to improve watercourses in areas of the Rea Catchment that are affected by sedimentation, diffuse pollution, degraded habitat and obstructions to fish passage. The restoration project on the Rea will help to remediate these issues, by working with farmers to encourage the installation of cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives. These include coppicing of riparian habitats, designating buffer strips between the fields and rivers and fencing and re-establishing eroded banks. The Severn Rivers Trust aims to improve the habitat and connectivity in order to encourage a sustainable return to natural river processes and reduce diffuse pollution from farmland to ensure that the failing water bodies achieve Good Ecological Status under the WFD.

Through restoration work, the project will address issues
including:
* Sediment which has a direct adverse effect on water quality.
* Barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching
habitat that they should be present in.
* Interrupted natural downstream movement of substrate which
reduces spawning habitat for salmonids.
* Poor in-channel and riparian habitat for riverine species
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Caption=River Rea Restoration Project Area
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Rea Bk - conf Pontesford Bk to conf R Severn
}}
{{Site
|Name=River Rea Catchment
|WFD water body code=GB109054044820
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=1000 - 5000 k€
|Total1 cost=1084,657
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Agriculture, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Substrate conditions
|Biological quality elements=Fish
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank improvement,
|Floodplain / River corridor=Removal of barriers
|Management interventions=Riparian Management to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing bank side collapse (another main source of sediment)
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Community engagement is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=MID003 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Rea
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF015 Project Briefing Note - River Rea.pdf
|Description=Briefing Note
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=severnriverstrust.com/
|Description=The Severn Rivers Trust is an independent environmental charity established to secure the preservation, protection, development and improvement of the rivers, streams, watercourses and water bodies in the Severn catchment, and to advance the education of the public in the management of water and the wider environment.
}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=www.riverrea.com/
|Description=The aim of the Rea Catchment Partnership is to restore, protect and sustain a healthy river system within the Rea Catchment.
}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information
|Information='''Description of Works
In order that we solve the problems in the Rea catchment, the River Rea Restoration aims to advise and assist farmers and land owners in applying the correct and relevant practices and tackle the issues by delivering the following measures:
*Fencing - where agricultural practices have been identified to be causing the watercourse to fail to meet WFD standards, riparian fencing and associated drinking points will result in multiple benefits. The poaching of riverbanks by livestock will be reduced,as will the associated excess sediment inputs. Vegetation will become re-established along the riverbanks, therefore increasing riparian habitat and biodiversity. This will result in the establishment of a buffer zone that will reduce the amount of nutr ient runoff that enters the watercourse from farmland and roads.
*Reconnecting habitat - where an obstruction to fish passage exists within the river channel, the project will look to remove it, or at the very least, make it passable. This will not only open up more habitat to migratory fish, but where removal occurs it will
also return the sediment movement to a more natural regime.
*Riparian Management – Bankside trees that have not been cut or coppiced for several years and have been allowed to grow up can shade riverbanks, restricting sunlight to under-storey vegetation and result in bare ground under the trees which is then
susceptible to erosion. The aim is to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing
bank side collapse (another main source of sediment).
*Community engagement - this is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach. We will increase and improve community engagement and establish a sense of ownership and responsibility of their rivers through active groups for future improvements and monitoring.

'''What will success look like?
As a charitable organisation, the Severn Rivers Trust want to work with farmers, landowners and other associated partner
organisations to ensure that our priorities are aligned in order to
achieve land management solutions that benefit both people
and the environment. Through education, we hope that farmers
and landowners will take ownership of the issues affecting their
watercourses, ensuring that they understand their direct and
indirect dependence on these natural resources and the
services they provide. Our principal aim is to see watercourses
in the Rea area achieve Good Ecological Status under the Water Framework Directive. This will mean a return to natural flow
regimes, improved water quality, increased riverine habitat and reconnected habitat, ultimately resulting in a better river
environment that can sustain greater biodiversity.
}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:River Rea Restoration Project

2016-03-15T16:02:05Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=52.45182497956459, -2.4049758911132812
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Emma
|Main contact surname=Buckingham
|Contact organisation=Severn River Trust
|Contact organisation url=severnriverstrust.com/
|Partner organisations=NShropshire Hills AONB, Shrewsbury Anglers Federation, Hook-a-gate fishing club, Pontesbury fishing club, EA, Shrophire Council and Rea IDB, NE
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Picture description=Project Area
|Project summary=Many watercourses within the River Rea Catchment are failing to meet the required standards under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) due to failing fish numbers. The River Rea has long been known as a catchment in serious decline as a result of sedimentation, poor agricultural practices and fish migration barriers. The Severn Rivers Trust walkover surveys of the River Rea, confirmed that suspended sediment load is seen to be impacting on the ecological health of the river and a major cause of fish failure. Impacts such as agricultural run-off from fields and bank erosion caused by farm animals are major contributors to an excessive quantity of sediment entering the river system. Also good riparian habitats are in decline due to over shading and over mature and diseased alders dying and falling into the river causing excessive blockages and bank erosion scars.

'''Planned outcommes
*Reduced agricultural run-off - reduced the in-stream sedimentation and fertiliser contamination, improved farming practices
*Improved biodiversity – improved in-stream habitats, re-established fish populations, improved invertebrate biodiversity, and control invasive species.
*Improved river water quality - reduced diffuse and point source pollution. Work towards achieving GES.
*Improved fish migration - removed un-necessary weirs, re-established spawning grounds.
*Reduced lateral river erosion and poaching - installed revetments, reduce poaching by reducing livestock access to watercourses.
*Improved flow regime – Reduced abstraction and or augmentation, plus wetland creation.
*Social - improved environment for recreation, promote interest and local community involvement in river restoration and healthy environment.
*Economic - improved fisheries, introduced farmers to the 'Passport Scheme', reduced farmer’s expenditure on fertilisers, pesticides, fuel and top soil replacement.
*Flood Defence – Create wetlands and wet woodlands and reduce sediment to mitigate flood risk. Raise flood risk awareness.

The River Rea restoration Project is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to improve watercourses in areas of the Rea Catchment that are affected by sedimentation, diffuse pollution, degraded habitat and obstructions to fish passage. The restoration project on the Rea will help to remediate these issues, by working with farmers to encourage the installation of cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives. These include coppicing of riparian habitats, designating buffer strips between the fields and rivers and fencing and re-establishing eroded banks. The Severn Rivers Trust aims to improve the habitat and connectivity in order to encourage a sustainable return to natural river processes and reduce diffuse pollution from farmland to ensure that the failing water bodies achieve Good Ecological Status under the WFD.

Through restoration work, the project will address issues
including:
* Sediment which has a direct adverse effect on water quality.
* Barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching
habitat that they should be present in.
* Interrupted natural downstream movement of substrate which
reduces spawning habitat for salmonids.
* Poor in-channel and riparian habitat for riverine species
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Rea Restoration Project Area.JPG
|Caption=River Rea Restoration Project Area
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site
|Name=River Rea Catchment
|WFD water body code=GB109054044820
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Total cost category=1000 - 5000 k€
|Total1 cost=1084,657
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Agriculture, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Substrate conditions
|Biological quality elements=Fish
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank improvement,
|Floodplain / River corridor=Removal of barriers
|Management interventions=Riparian Management to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing bank side collapse (another main source of sediment)
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Community engagement is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=MID003 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Rea
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}

{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF015 Project Briefing Note - River Rea.pdf
|Description=Briefing Note
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=severnriverstrust.com/
|Description=The Severn Rivers Trust is an independent environmental charity established to secure the preservation, protection, development and improvement of the rivers, streams, watercourses and water bodies in the Severn catchment, and to advance the education of the public in the management of water and the wider environment.
}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=www.riverrea.com/
|Description=The aim of the Rea Catchment Partnership is to restore, protect and sustain a healthy river system within the Rea Catchment.
}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information
|Information='''Description of Works
In order that we solve the problems in the Rea catchment, the River Rea Restoration aims to advise and assist farmers and land owners in applying the correct and relevant practices and tackle the issues by delivering the following measures:
*Fencing - where agricultural practices have been identified to be causing the watercourse to fail to meet WFD standards, riparian fencing and associated drinking points will result in multiple benefits. The poaching of riverbanks by livestock will be reduced,as will the associated excess sediment inputs. Vegetation will become re-established along the riverbanks, therefore increasing riparian habitat and biodiversity. This will result in the establishment of a buffer zone that will reduce the amount of nutr ient runoff that enters the watercourse from farmland and roads.
*Reconnecting habitat - where an obstruction to fish passage exists within the river channel, the project will look to remove it, or at the very least, make it passable. This will not only open up more habitat to migratory fish, but where removal occurs it will
also return the sediment movement to a more natural regime.
*Riparian Management – Bankside trees that have not been cut or coppiced for several years and have been allowed to grow up can shade riverbanks, restricting sunlight to under-storey vegetation and result in bare ground under the trees which is then
susceptible to erosion. The aim is to increase the amount of light getting through the canopy, promote natural re-growth of bankside plants and increase levels of bank stability and stabilise the spread of Phytophthora amongst the Alders, reducing
bank side collapse (another main source of sediment).
*Community engagement - this is essential to the long term success of the project as it encourages local ownership and support. It is seen as an integral part of an integrated catchment management approach. We will increase and improve community engagement and establish a sense of ownership and responsibility of their rivers through active groups for future improvements and monitoring.

'''What will success look like?
As a charitable organisation, the Severn Rivers Trust want to work with farmers, landowners and other associated partner
organisations to ensure that our priorities are aligned in order to
achieve land management solutions that benefit both people
and the environment. Through education, we hope that farmers
and landowners will take ownership of the issues affecting their
watercourses, ensuring that they understand their direct and
indirect dependence on these natural resources and the
services they provide. Our principal aim is to see watercourses
in the Rea area achieve Good Ecological Status under the Water Framework Directive. This will mean a return to natural flow
regimes, improved water quality, increased riverine habitat and reconnected habitat, ultimately resulting in a better river
environment that can sustain greater biodiversity.
}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:Hedleyhope Burn

2016-03-15T16:01:06Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.78235650468879, -1.7352712154388427
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Fisheries
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.therrc.co.uk
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:The River Deerness Project
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Hedleyhope Burn.png
|Picture description=Completed rock ramp easement. Photograph courtesy of the Wear Rivers Trust
|Project summary=The River Deerness catchment has multiple WFD failures, for both fish and water quality. Funding from the Catchment Restoration Fund as well as Durham County Council and Durham University allowed for the provision of a rock pool fish easement at a road culvert on at Cornsay Colliery located on Hedleyhope Burn (a tributary of the River Deerness), completed in September 2012.
Hedleyhope Burn is 9.2km in length. The road culvert has been cutting of fish access to 5km of good quality habitat, as under most flow conditions the culvert becomes impassable. This 30m corrugated steel pipe has rapid and shallow uniform flows when water levels are low, and concentrated high velocity flows at high water levels. An extensive erosion pool at the downstream exit to the culvert exhibits the force of water leaving the culvert. A wide concrete step 15 to 20 cm above the surface of the water also obstructs fish passage into the culvert.
The solution was to replace the existing scour pool with a series of rock pools to provide a variety of flows for fish, as well as drowning out the concrete step by increasing water levels back into the culvert and creating a slower and deeper flow, improving fish passage. Flood risk was not increased as the site is in a deep depression with no buildings close by.
The site is owned by Durham County who also contributed half of the cost. The Wear Rivers Trust helped with the design of the rock pool easement. Due to the location in a high rainfall upland area, 2-3 tonne rocks were used to form a continuous line of bank protection to protect the site a high flow levels. Larger gravels were also used, and willow spiling is due to be installed at a later stage.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Hedleyhope Burn from Source to Deerness
}}
{{Site
|Name=Cornsay Colliery
|WFD water body code=GB103024077290
|WFD water body name=Hedleyhope Burn from Source to Deerness
|Pre-project morphology=Closed culvert,
|Reference morphology=Bedrock cascade,
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture,
}}
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=130
|Project started=2012
|Project completed=2012/09/01
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund, Durham County Council, Durham University
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration,
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Continuity of sediment transport,
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=creation of rock pools downstream of culvert
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=WR KT A4 Cornsay.pdf
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The River Deerness Project

2016-03-15T15:59:52Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.776533980091, -1.6105270385742
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Project web site url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/content/deernessrestoration
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Durham County Council, Durham University
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Picture description=Cornsay Colliery culvert
|Project summary=The Deerness catchment, located west of Durham City, covers 53 km2 and includes the small colliery towns of Ushaw Moor, Esh Winning and Cornsay. Land use is largely agricultural, with woodland cover and several reclaimed open cast and landfill sites. A significant part of the catchment fails the Water Framework Directive for fish, due to the cumulative effects of barriers to the upstream and downstream movement of all fish species and also because of water quality issues (principally phosphate) reflected in altered phytobenthos.

The outcomes of the project are the following: enhanced habitat connectivity throughout both catchments allowing all fish species, migratory and non-migratory, maximum scope to spawn and feed; improved knowledge of fish populations and behaviours through baseline and post-implementation monitoring and evaluation; progress toward/achievement of Good Ecological Status and focus on any residual water quality issues required to achieve good status; establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be ex-tended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Wear Rivers Trust operates fish and invertebrate surveys to assess fish populations and water health in both catchments. Under CRF a Durham University PhD student, with WRT and volunteer support, will survey below and above each obstruction both before and after restoration activities to measure impacts on those animal groups. Changes in invertebrate communities are not expected as a direct result of the restoration activities but they can inform on the wider food web for fish feeding opportunities, and provide biotic indices of water quality, giving wider insight into local environmental quality. Waste water management is significant across the Lower Wear system, including these two catchments. Supplementary projects, based on a separate volunteer walkover programme, will be developed under the auspices of the Wear River Catchment Management Plan to identify and address point and diffuse sources of pollution, in order to augment CRF actions for improvement to fish movement within these catchments
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Caption=Cornsay Colliery culvert
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Broadgate Ford.jpg
|Caption=Broadgate Ford
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
}}
{{Site
|Name=Deerness
|WFD water body code=GB103024077551
|WFD water body name=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=108
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Water quality, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms
|Biological quality elements=Phytobenthos, Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Phosphate
}}
{{Measures
|Planform / Channel pattern=Remove obstacles in the riverbed, Removing barriers to water organisms migration in the river
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be extended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=No
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NO006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Deerness
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF020 Project Briefing Note - Deerness.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Deerness
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The River Deerness Project 2

2016-03-15T15:59:35Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.781088119621074, -1.613616943359375
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Project web site url=http://www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/content/deernessrestoration
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=http://www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Durham County Council, Durham University
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:The River Deerness Project
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=The Old Durham Beck catchment, to the east of Durham City and covering 55 km2, has been heavily modified by mine workings and railway infrastructure and is one of the most intensively farmed Wear tributaries. It is categorised as having moderate to poor ecological status, failing for fish, ammonia and phosphate. Walkovers identified a series of culverts obstructing fish passage. In November 2011 approximately 50 congregating salmon were observed unable to make their way upstream.

The outcomes of the project are the following: enhanced habitat connectivity throughout both catchments allowing all fish species, migratory and non-migratory, maximum scope to spawn and feed; improved knowledge of fish populations and behaviours through baseline and postimplementation monitoring and evaluation; progress toward/achievement of Good Ecological Status and focus on any residual water quality issues required to achieve good status; establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be extended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Wear Rivers Trust operates fish and inverte-brate surveys to assess fish populations and water health in both catchments. Under CRF a Durham University PhD student, with WRT and volunteer support, will survey below and above each obstruc-tion both before and after restoration activities to measure impacts on those animal groups. Changes in invertebrate communities are not expected as a direct result of the restoration activities but they can inform on the wider food web for fish feeding opportunities, and provide biotic indices of water quality, giving wider insight into local environmental quality. Waste water management is significant across the Lower Wear system, including these two catchments. Supplementary projects, based on a separate volunteer walkover programme, will be developed under the auspices of the Wear River Catchment Management Plan to identify and address point and diffuse sources of pollution, in order to augment CRF actions for improvement to fish movement within these catchments.

}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
}}
{{Site
|Name=Old Durham Beck
|WFD water body code=GB103024077551
|WFD water body name=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=108
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Water quality, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms
|Biological quality elements=Phytobenthos, Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations
}}
{{Measures}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Fish
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Element=Invertebrates
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row
|Element=Nutrient concentrations
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=Yes
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Awaiting results
}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NO006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Deerness
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF020 Project Briefing Note - Deerness.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Deerness
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The River Deerness Project

2016-03-15T15:58:33Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.776533980091, -1.6105270385742
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Project web site url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/content/deernessrestoration
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Durham County Council, Durham University
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Picture description=Cornsay Colliery culvert
|Project summary=The Deerness catchment, located west of Durham City, covers 53 km2 and includes the small colliery towns of Ushaw Moor, Esh Winning and Cornsay. Land use is largely agricultural, with woodland cover and several reclaimed open cast and landfill sites. A significant part of the catchment fails the Water Framework Directive for fish, due to the cumulative effects of barriers to the upstream and downstream movement of all fish species and also because of water quality issues (principally phosphate) reflected in altered phytobenthos.

The outcomes of the project are the following: enhanced habitat connectivity throughout both catchments allowing all fish species, migratory and non-migratory, maximum scope to spawn and feed; improved knowledge of fish populations and behaviours through baseline and post-implementation monitoring and evaluation; progress toward/achievement of Good Ecological Status and focus on any residual water quality issues required to achieve good status; establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be ex-tended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Wear Rivers Trust operates fish and invertebrate surveys to assess fish populations and water health in both catchments. Under CRF a Durham University PhD student, with WRT and volunteer support, will survey below and above each obstruction both before and after restoration activities to measure impacts on those animal groups. Changes in invertebrate communities are not expected as a direct result of the restoration activities but they can inform on the wider food web for fish feeding opportunities, and provide biotic indices of water quality, giving wider insight into local environmental quality. Waste water management is significant across the Lower Wear system, including these two catchments. Supplementary projects, based on a separate volunteer walkover programme, will be developed under the auspices of the Wear River Catchment Management Plan to identify and address point and diffuse sources of pollution, in order to augment CRF actions for improvement to fish movement within these catchments
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Caption=Cornsay Colliery culvert
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Broadgate Ford.jpg
|Caption=Broadgate Ford
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
}}
{{Site
|Name=Deerness
|WFD water body code=GB103024077551
|WFD water body name=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=108
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Water quality, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms
|Biological quality elements=Phytobenthos, Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Phosphate
}}
{{Measures
|Planform / Channel pattern=Remove obstacles in the riverbed, Removing barriers to water organisms migration in the river
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be extended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=No
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NO006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Deerness
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF020 Project Briefing Note - Deerness.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Deerness
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The River Deerness Project

2016-03-15T15:58:05Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.776533980091, -1.6105270385742
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Project web site url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/content/deernessrestoration
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wear-rivers-trust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Durham County Council, Durham University
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Picture description=Cornsay Colliery culvert
|Project summary=The Deerness catchment, located west of Durham City, covers 53 km2 and includes the small colliery towns of Ushaw Moor, Esh Winning and Cornsay. Land use is largely agricultural, with woodland cover and several reclaimed open cast and landfill sites. A significant part of the catchment fails the Water Framework Directive for fish, due to the cumulative effects of barriers to the upstream and downstream movement of all fish spe-cies and also because of water quality issues (principally phosphate) reflected in altered phytobenthos.

The outcomes of the project are the following: enhanced habitat connectivity throughout both catchments allowing all fish species, migratory and non-migratory, maximum scope to spawn and feed; improved knowledge of fish populations and behaviours through baseline and postimplementation monitoring and evaluation; progress toward/achievement of Good Ecological Status and focus on any residual water quality issues required to achieve good status; establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be ex-tended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Wear Rivers Trust operates fish and invertebrate surveys to assess fish populations and water health in both catchments. Under CRF a Durham University PhD student, with WRT and volunteer support, will survey below and above each obstruction both before and after restoration activities to measure impacts on those animal groups. Changes in invertebrate communities are not expected as a direct result of the restoration activities but they can inform on the wider food web for fish feeding opportunities, and provide biotic indices of water quality, giving wider insight into local environmental quality. Waste water management is significant across the Lower Wear system, including these two catchments. Supplementary projects, based on a separate volunteer walkover programme, will be developed under the auspices of the Wear River Catchment Management Plan to identify and address point and diffuse sources of pollution, in order to augment CRF actions for improvement to fish movement within these catchments
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Cornsay Colliery culvert.jpg
|Caption=Cornsay Colliery culvert
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Broadgate Ford.jpg
|Caption=Broadgate Ford
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
}}
{{Site
|Name=Deerness
|WFD water body code=GB103024077551
|WFD water body name=Browney from Smallhope Burn Deerness confl
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Intensive agriculture (arable)
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=108
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Water quality, Barriers to fish migration
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms
|Biological quality elements=Phytobenthos, Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Phosphate
}}
{{Measures
|Planform / Channel pattern=Remove obstacles in the riverbed, Removing barriers to water organisms migration in the river
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Establishment of partnership working and joint delivery to be extended under the auspices of the Wear Catchment Management Plan.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{Biological quality element table row
|Monitored before=No
|Monitored after=No
|Qualitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NO006 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Deerness
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF020 Project Briefing Note - Deerness.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Deerness
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:Hedleyhope Burn

2016-03-15T15:56:27Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.78235650468879, -1.7352712154388427
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Fisheries
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.therrc.co.uk
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:The River Deerness Project
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Hedleyhope Burn.png
|Picture description=Completed rock ramp easement. Photograph courtesy of the Wear Rivers Trust
|Project summary=The River Deerness catchment has multiple WFD failures, for both fish and water quality. Funding from the Catchment Restoration Fund as well as Durham County Council and Durham University allowed for the provision of a rock pool fish easement at a road culvert on at Cornsay Colliery located on Hedleyhope Burn (a tributary of the River Deerness), completed in September 2012.
Hedleyhope Burn is 9.2km in length. The road culvert has been cutting of fish access to 5km of good quality habitat, as under most flow conditions the culvert becomes impassable. This 30m corrugated steel pipe has rapid and shallow uniform flows when water levels are low, and concentrated high velocity flows at high water levels. An extensive erosion pool at the downstream exit to the culvert exhibits the force of water leaving the culvert. A wide concrete step 15 to 20 cm above the surface of the water also obstructs fish passage into the culvert.
The solution was to replace the existing scour pool with a series of rock pools to provide a variety of flows for fish, as well as drowning out the concrete step by increasing water levels back into the culvert and creating a slower and deeper flow, improving fish passage. Flood risk was not increased as the site is in a deep depression with no buildings close by.
The site is owned by Durham County who also contributed half of the cost. The Wear Rivers Trust helped with the design of the rock pool easement. Due to the location in a high rainfall upland area, 2-3 tonne rocks were used to form a continuous line of bank protection to protect the site a high flow levels. Larger gravels were also used, and willow spiling is due to be installed at a later stage.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Hedleyhope Burn from Source to Deerness
}}
{{Site
|Name=Cornsay Colliery
|WFD water body code=GB103024077290
|WFD water body name=Hedleyhope Burn from Source to Deerness
|Pre-project morphology=Closed culvert,
|Reference morphology=Bedrock cascade,
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture,
}}
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=130
|Project started=2012
|Project completed=2012/09/01
|Funding sources=catchment restoration fund, Durham county council and Durham University
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration,
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Continuity of sediment transport,
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=creation of rock pools downstream of culvert
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=WR KT A4 Cornsay.pdf
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:Hedleyhope Burn

2016-03-15T15:55:50Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.78235650468879, -1.7352712154388427
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Fisheries
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Steve
|Main contact surname=Hudson
|Contact organisation=Wear Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.therrc.co.uk
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Hedleyhope Burn.png
|Picture description=Completed rock ramp easement. Photograph courtesy of the Wear Rivers Trust
|Project summary=The River Deerness catchment has multiple WFD failures, for both fish and water quality. Funding from the Catchment Restoration Fund as well as Durham County Council and Durham University allowed for the provision of a rock pool fish easement at a road culvert on at Cornsay Colliery located on Hedleyhope Burn (a tributary of the River Deerness), completed in September 2012.
Hedleyhope Burn is 9.2km in length. The road culvert has been cutting of fish access to 5km of good quality habitat, as under most flow conditions the culvert becomes impassable. This 30m corrugated steel pipe has rapid and shallow uniform flows when water levels are low, and concentrated high velocity flows at high water levels. An extensive erosion pool at the downstream exit to the culvert exhibits the force of water leaving the culvert. A wide concrete step 15 to 20 cm above the surface of the water also obstructs fish passage into the culvert.
The solution was to replace the existing scour pool with a series of rock pools to provide a variety of flows for fish, as well as drowning out the concrete step by increasing water levels back into the culvert and creating a slower and deeper flow, improving fish passage. Flood risk was not increased as the site is in a deep depression with no buildings close by.
The site is owned by Durham County who also contributed half of the cost. The Wear Rivers Trust helped with the design of the rock pool easement. Due to the location in a high rainfall upland area, 2-3 tonne rocks were used to form a continuous line of bank protection to protect the site a high flow levels. Larger gravels were also used, and willow spiling is due to be installed at a later stage.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Hedleyhope Burn from Source to Deerness
}}
{{Site
|Name=Cornsay Colliery
|WFD water body code=GB103024077290
|WFD water body name=Hedleyhope Burn from Source to Deerness
|Pre-project morphology=Closed culvert,
|Reference morphology=Bedrock cascade,
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture,
}}
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=130
|Project started=2012
|Project completed=2012/09/01
|Funding sources=catchment restoration fund, Durham county council and Durham University
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration,
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Continuity of sediment transport,
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=creation of rock pools downstream of culvert
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=WR KT A4 Cornsay.pdf
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:Haltwhistle burn; a total catchment approach

2016-03-15T15:54:05Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.972237, -2.4608560000000352
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Ceri
|Main contact surname=Gibson
|Main contact id=Halty
|Contact organisation=Tyne Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=tyneriverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=Haltwhistle Town Council, Northumberland National Park, Northumberland County Council, Forestry Commission, Natural England, Environment Agency, Newcastle University (NiRES), Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=P1080507.JPG
|Picture description=Haltwhistle catchment; beautiful and challenging
|Project summary=Haltwhistle Burn: ‘a total catchment’ approach is a partnership project which will use CRF funds to improve the whole catchment which has suffered the pressures of quarrying, farming, industry and an increasing population. Although the ‘official’ reasons for failure concern pressures on fish according to the criteria provided by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) this project addresses total waterbody issues deriving from a multitude of pressures, each creating ‘sub-lethal’ but chronic stresses.
Haltwhistle’s ‘Centre of Britain’ identity, together with attraction of Hadrian’s Wall makes it a po-tentially significant tourism centre, with a focus on both heritage and natural features. There are however significant economic difficulties and youth behaviour issues. Haltwhistle Burn is a central focus and has already attracted works of improvement and interpretation by the Haltwhis-tle Partnership.
Since the 2007 floods in the town, Tyne Rivers Trust has nurtured excellent relationships with agencies and extremely enthusiastic individuals directly connected to their catchment. Whilst the project is not a flood defence project this CRF funding now gives us a clear focus for agency action and direct spending on mitigating excess runoff and pollution.

Tyne Rivers Trust have already carried out geomorphological and habitat assessment of the entire burn, concluding that the ‘catchment approach’ would, by combining the small issues, create a significant benefit for the South Tyne and address the WFD ‘poor status’ classification.
|Monitoring surveys and results=This project is still in progress. To date we have restored 45m of channel and 200m of river bank. We have planted 190 trees. We have set up photographic fixed point monitoring sites for the river bank management work and after one season of regrowth the work is doing what we had hoped. We have 3 Riverfly monitors sampling on the burn and to date none of our intervention has had a negative effect. We have completed the preliminary electro-fishing surveys; the next permissible electro-fishing sweason is from July 2014. Another element of this project is also working with the local community to gather information on rainfall, river level, water temperature, turbidity, other chemical water quality measurements and fixed-point photography.
|Lessons learn=It is impossible to achievement multiple benefits in a hollistic approach project without the support and commitment of partners, local land owners and local residents. We have only managed to achieve this through dedicating time to bringing the right people together and explaining clearly our aims and overlapping benefits. Only then can efective work on the ground begin. It is vital to consider legacy and exit-strategy right from the beginning. Working at the sub-catchment scale cannot be considered in the short-term. Management and maintenance of interventions must be planned for and bought into within the community.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Electrofishing with volunteers.JPG
|Caption=Electro-fishing with volunteers
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=FC trees marked ready for leaky dam creation.jpg
|Caption=Forestry Commission trees marked ready for leaky dam creation
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Felled tree secured with cable to protect bank and create habitat.JPG
|Caption=Felled tree secured with cable to protect bank and create habitat
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Forest road drain runs over rough ground rather than into watercourse.jpg
|Caption=Forest road drain runs over rough ground rather than into watercourse
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Green revetment ensures outflow channel does not silt up.JPG
|Caption=Green revetment ensures outflow channel does not silt up
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Haltwhistle River Watch Group LOVE Northumberland.JPG
|Caption=Haltwhistle River Watch Group LOVE Northumberland award
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=HCC children build their own river simulator p.jpg
|Caption=Children from Haltwhistle Community Campus are inspired to build their own river simulator
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=HCC river transect measurement p.jpg
|Caption=Children from Haltwhistle Community Campus carry out river transect
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=HCC water chemistry measurements.jpg
|Caption=Children from Haltwhistle Community Campus measure water chemistry
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Laying trees to protect river bank.JPG
|Caption=Laying trees to protect river bank
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Recording fish data with volunteers.JPG
|Caption=Recording fish data with volunteers
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River bank collapse p.jpg
|Caption=River bank collapse
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River bank collapse protected by willow p.jpg
|Caption=River bank collapse protected by willow
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Watch Coffee morning fundraiser and info stall.JPG
|Caption=River Watch coffee morning fundraiser and info stall
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Setting up a rainfall gauge p.jpg
|Caption=Setting up a rainfall gauge
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Sharing knowledge of the catchment.jpg
|Caption=Sharing knowledge of the catchment
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=White-clawed crayfish survey workshop.jpg
|Caption=White-clawed crayfish survey workshop
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Working out flow direction for fish easement.JPG
|Caption=Working out flow direction for fish easement
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Haltwhistle Burn from Source to South Tyne
}}
{{Site
|Name=Haltwhistle
|WFD water body code=GB103023075570
|WFD water body name=Haltwhistle Burn from Source to South Tyne
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Site designation=All - multiple designations across the site
|Local site designation=local wildlife site, local geological site
|Protected species present=Yes
|Invasive species present=Yes
|Species=white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes),
}}
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=18 000
|Project started=2012/09/17
|Works started=2013/01/14
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=425
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
|Stakeholder1 engagement cost category=10 - 50 k€
|stk engagement cost=45
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=Tyne Rivers Trust
|Works1 and supervision cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Wrk and supervision cost=322
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Tyne Rivers Trust
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=Tyne Rivers Trust
|Monitoring1 cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Monitoring2 cost=7.3
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Farming, Industry, Urbanisation
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Freshwater flow regime
|Biological quality elements=Fish
}}
{{Measures
|Floodplain / River corridor=Removal of barriers
|Management interventions=Management of organic and inorganic sediments, Improve forest management and agricultural
|Social measures=Increase awareness of flood issues
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Community engagement with, and responsibility for, the delivery within every strand of this project will be encour-aged. A Tyne Rivers Trust River Watch group has already been set up collating existing local knowledge, carrying out some improvement tasks such as tree planting and to achieve monitoring via fixed point photography, inverte-brate analysis, electro-fishing, and rainfall and flow measurements. The local school has also experiences a ‘Living Rivers’ day with Tyne Rivers Trust exploring their local burn and issues of the wider catchment. They will be further engaged as the project develops.
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NO007 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Haltwhistle
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF036 Project Briefing Note - Haltwhistle.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Haltwhistle
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=research.ncl.ac.uk/haltwhistleburn/
|Description=Community Based Catchment Management research project
}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Pow Beck Improvement Project

2016-03-15T15:48:36Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.822509765625, -2.92742705345153
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Will
|Main contact surname=Cleasby
|Contact organisation=Eden Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.edenriverstrust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=EEnvironment Agency, Eden Demonstration Test Catchment, National Farmers Union, Catchment Sensitive Farming,
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=P1010231.JPG
|Picture description=Soil husbandry workshops in the Pow Beck catchment
|Project summary=Work on the Pow Beck will revolve around mitigation of diffuse agricultural pollution, more specifically nutrient and sediment loss from the farming system. The first phase of the project will be based around engaging the farming community on the Pow Beck and providing a range of workshops that inform them about diffuse pollution and the work that can be done to address it through the project.

The project will then seek to address issues through a number of methods working in conjunction with the farm business.
The work involved includes improving farm infrastructure or installing riverbank fencing and planting trees. The project is also changing the working practices of businesses in the area by using GPS equipment to improve the accuracy of fertiliser spreading and offering machinery to help reduce the amount of soil compaction.
The project therefore aims to take a whole farm approach to diffuse pollution reduction.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Eden Demonstration Test Catchment (EdenDTC) project will carry out monitoring of stream water quality and biology. This includes monitoring nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and water volume.
Additionally before and after photographs will be taken of project sites and electrofishing surveys take place within the catchment.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1428.JPG
|Caption=Pow Beck fencing and tree planting
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 0384.jpg
|Caption=GPS equipment
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1675.JPG
|Caption=Drain tracing to inform infrastructure improvement
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1130.jpg
|Caption=Fencing
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Pow SCIMAP.jpg
|Caption=SCIMAP erosion risk
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Bank Before Work - June.JPG
|Caption=Before installation of woody debris
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Bank After Work - July.JPG
|Caption=After installation of woody debris
}}

{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Pow Beck (Eden and Esk)
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB102076073780
|WFD water body name=Pow Beck
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=480
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=

|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Other technical measure=Farm infrastructure interventions,
|Management interventions=Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Economic benefits
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW011 monitroing framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF001 Project Briefing Note - Pow Beck.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Pow Beck
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:The Pow Beck Improvement Project

2016-03-15T15:47:09Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.822509765625, -2.92742705345153
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Will
|Main contact surname=Cleasby
|Contact organisation=Eden Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.edenriverstrust.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=EEnvironment Agency, Eden Demonstration Test Catchment, National Farmers Union, Catchment Sensitive Farming,
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=P1010231.JPG
|Picture description=Soil husbandry workshops in the Pow Beck catchment
|Project summary=Work on the Pow Beck will revolve around mitigation of diffuse agricultural pollution, more specifically nutrient and sediment loss from the farming system. The first phase of the project will be based around engaging the farming community on the Pow Beck and providing a range of workshops that inform them about diffuse pollution and the work that can be done to address it through the project.

The project will then seek to address issues through a number of methods working in conjunction with the farm business.
The work involved includes improving farm infrastructure or installing riverbank fencing and planting trees. The project is also changing the working practices of businesses in the area by using GPS equipment to improve the accuracy of fertiliser spreading and offering machinery to help reduce the amount of soil compaction.
The project therefore aims to take a whole farm approach to diffuse pollution reduction.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The Eden Demonstration Test Catchment (EdenDTC) project will carry out monitoring of stream water quality and biology. This includes monitoring nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and water volume.
Additionally before and after photographs will be taken of project sites and electrofishing surveys take place within the catchment.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1428.JPG
|Caption=Pow Beck fencing and tree planting
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 0384.jpg
|Caption=GPS equipment
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1675.JPG
|Caption=Drain tracing to inform infrastructure improvement
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=IMG 1130.jpg
|Caption=Fencing
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Pow SCIMAP.jpg
|Caption=SCIMAP erosion risk
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Bank Before Work - June.JPG
|Caption=Before installation of woody debris
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=River Bank After Work - July.JPG
|Caption=After installation of woody debris
}}

{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Pow Beck (Eden and Esk)
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB102076073780
|WFD water body name=Pow Beck
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=

|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Other technical measure=Farm infrastructure interventions,
|Management interventions=Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Economic benefits
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW011 monitroing framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF001 Project Briefing Note - Pow Beck.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Pow Beck
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Improving water quality in Loweswater

2016-03-15T15:45:49Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.5832290649414, -3.35668659210205
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Leslie
|Main contact surname=Webb
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=National Trust, Environment Agency, Natural England, United Utilities, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, University College London, Cumbria Wildlife Trust
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Loweswater.jpg
|Project summary=To ensure that Loweswater achieves good ecological status under the WFD, diffuse pollution will be reduced through changes to farming practices and restoration of tributaries, and methods will be trialled to reduce algal populations within the lake including ultrasound and wind-powered aerating and mixing equipment.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Dub (Park) Beck
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB112075070360
|WFD water body name=Dub (Park) Beck
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=350
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Phytoplankton
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=

|Management interventions=
Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Loweswater
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF035 Project Briefing Note Loweswater DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Loweswater
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Improving water quality in Loweswater

2016-03-15T15:44:13Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=54.5832290649414, -3.35668659210205
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Leslie
|Main contact surname=Webb
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=National Trust, Environment Agency, Natural England, United Utilities, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, University College London, Cumbria Wildlife Trust
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Loweswater.jpg
|Project summary=To ensure that Loweswater achieves good ecological status under the WFD, diffuse pollution will be reduced through changes to farming practices and restoration of tributaries, and methods will be trialled to reduce algal populations within the lake including ultrasound and wind-powered aerating and mixing equipment.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Dub (Park) Beck
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB112075070360
|WFD water body name=Dub (Park) Beck
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

|Biological quality elements=
Phytoplankton
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
Nutrient concentrations
|Specific mitigation=
Pollution incident, Riparian development
|Other motivation=
Landscape enhancement
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=

|Other technical measure=

|Management interventions=
Non/agricultural business changed its way of working,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=NW019 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Loweswater
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF035 Project Briefing Note Loweswater DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Loweswater
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Western Rother Fishery Habitat Enhancement

2016-03-15T15:41:22Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.9565505981445, -0.59822940826416
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Social benefits
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Ses
|Main contact surname=Wright
|Contact organisation=Ouse & Adur Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.oart.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Wild Trout Trust, Petworth & Bognor Angling Club
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Photos Rother 1.jpg
|Picture description=Image of the Rother pre-restoration
|Project summary=The Western Rother Fishery Habitat Enhancement Project is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to provide multiple habitat improvements on a section of the lower Rother at Shopham Bridge, just south of Petworth in West Sussex.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Western Rother
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB107041012810
|WFD water body name=Western Rother
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=130
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

Continuity for organisms, Channel pattern/planform, Substrate conditions, Width & depth variation
|Biological quality elements=
Fish, Invertebrates
|Physico-chemical quality elements=

|Specific mitigation=

|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

Bank reprofiling,
|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=
Channel features creation,
|Other technical measure=
Non BAP habitat creation/restoration,
|Management interventions=
Fencing,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SE002 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Western Rother
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF002 Project Briefing Note - Western Rother DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Western Rother
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:Western Rother Fishery Habitat Enhancement

2016-03-15T15:39:34Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.9565505981445, -0.59822940826416
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Social benefits
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Ses
|Main contact surname=Wright
|Contact organisation=Ouse & Adur Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.oart.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Wild Trout Trust, Petworth & Bognor Angling Club
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Photos Rother 1.jpg
|Picture description=Image of the Rother pre-restoration
|Project summary=The Western Rother Fishery Habitat Enhancement Project is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to provide multiple habitat improvements on a section of the lower Rother at Shopham Bridge, just south of Petworth in West Sussex.
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Western Rother
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB107041012810
|WFD water body name=Western Rother
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/01
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund
}}
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=

Continuity for organisms, Channel pattern/planform, Substrate conditions, Width & depth variation
|Biological quality elements=
Fish, Invertebrates
|Physico-chemical quality elements=

|Specific mitigation=

|Other motivation=

}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=

Bank reprofiling,
|Floodplain / River corridor=

|Planform / Channel pattern=
Channel features creation,
|Other technical measure=
Non BAP habitat creation/restoration,
|Management interventions=
Fencing,
|Social measures=
Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=

}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Biological_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Other_responses_header}}
{{End_table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SE002 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Western Rother
}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF002 Project Briefing Note - Western Rother DRAFT.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Western Rother
}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=

}}
{{Toggle_content_end}}
{{Case_study_upload}}

Case study:The Dart and Teign River Improvement Project (DTRIP)

2016-03-15T15:18:53Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.393636602165, -3.6241149902344
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Bruce
|Main contact surname=Stockley
|Contact organisation=Westcountry Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wrt.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency, Natural England, Dartmoor National Park, the Dart Fisheries Association, the Teign Fisheries Association, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Dartmoor Hill Farm Project, Fountains Forestry, The Woodland Trust, South West water, The Forestry Commission, University of Plymouth, University College London.
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=DTRIP is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to manage restoration work and to deliver habitat improvements in the Dart and Teign catchment. The partnership, led by the Westcountry Rivers Trust, has been working together for many years, carrying out river restoration and addressing the causes of Wa-ter Framework Directive issues.Through restoration work, the project will address issues including: sediment, which has a direct adverse effect on water quality; diffuse pollution from agriculture and roads, which can impact on river ecology and causes WFD failures; barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching habitat where modeling shows they should be present; interrupted conveyance of river gravels, resulting in reduced spawning habitats for salmonids; habitat loss of wetted and wooded land that has an important role to play in improving water quality & quantity; acidified moorland that creates low pH levels that are detrimental to ecological health of the rivers.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=DART
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB510804605900
|WFD water body name=DART
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/05/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=665
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund,
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Drinking water storage and supply
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Gravel Augmentation, Continuity of sediment transport,
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations, PH
|Other motivation=Economic, Social
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Marginal planting, Removal of weirs/barriers,Reduce diffuse pollution,Diversification of in-channel features
|Floodplain / River corridor=Fencing, fenced drinking points
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel features creation
|Management interventions=Agricultural business changed its way of working
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Monitoring and survey projects
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SW004 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF005 Project Briefing Note - Dart and Teign.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Dart and Teign River Improvement Project (DTRIP)

2016-03-15T15:16:57Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.393636602165, -3.6241149902344
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Bruce
|Main contact surname=Stockley
|Contact organisation=Westcountry Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wrt.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency, Natural England, Dartmoor National Park, the Dart Fisheries Association, the Teign Fisheries Association, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Dartmoor Hill Farm Project, Fountains Forestry, The Woodland Trust, South West water, The Forestry Commission, University of Plymouth, University College London.
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project summary=DTRIP is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to manage restoration work and to deliver habitat improvements in the Dart and Teign catchment. The partnership, led by the Westcountry Rivers Trust, has been working together for many years, carrying out river restoration and addressing the causes of Wa-ter Framework Directive issues.Through restoration work, the project will address issues including: sediment, which has a direct adverse effect on water quality; diffuse pollution from agriculture and roads, which can impact on river ecology and causes WFD failures; barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching habitat where modeling shows they should be present; interrupted conveyance of river gravels, resulting in reduced spawning habitats for salmonids; habitat loss of wetted and wooded land that has an important role to play in improving water quality & quantity; acidified moorland that creates low pH levels that are detrimental to ecological health of the rivers.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=DART
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB510804605900
|WFD water body name=DART
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/05/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=665
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund,
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Drinking water storage and supply
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Gravel Augmentation, Continuity of sediment transport,
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations, PH
|Other motivation=Economic, Social
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Marginal planting, Removal of weirs/barriers,Reduce diffuse pollution,Diversification of in-channel features
|Floodplain / River corridor=Fencing, fenced drinking points
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel features creation
|Management interventions=Agricultural business changed its way of working
|Social measures=Community involvement
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Monitoring and survey projects
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SW004 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF005 Project Briefing Note - Dart and Teign.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Dart and Teign River Improvement Project (DTRIP)

2016-03-15T15:15:50Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.393636602165, -3.6241149902344
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Bruce
|Main contact surname=Stockley
|Contact organisation=Westcountry Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wrt.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency, Natural England, Dartmoor National Park, the Dart Fisheries Association, the Teign Fisheries Association, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Dartmoor Hill Farm Project, Fountains Forestry, The Woodland Trust, South West water, The Forestry Commission, University of Plymouth, University College London.
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project summary=DTRIP is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to manage restoration work and to deliver habitat improvements in the Dart and Teign catchment. The partnership, led by the Westcountry Rivers Trust, has been working together for many years, carrying out river restoration and addressing the causes of Wa-ter Framework Directive issues.Through restoration work, the project will address issues including: sediment, which has a direct adverse effect on water quality; diffuse pollution from agriculture and roads, which can impact on river ecology and causes WFD failures; barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching habitat where modeling shows they should be present; interrupted conveyance of river gravels, resulting in reduced spawning habitats for salmonids; habitat loss of wetted and wooded land that has an important role to play in improving water quality & quantity; acidified moorland that creates low pH levels that are detrimental to ecological health of the rivers.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=DART
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB510804605900
|WFD water body name=DART
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/05/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=665
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund,
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Drinking water storage and supply
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Gravel Augmentation, Continuity of sediment transport,
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations, PH
|Other motivation=Economic, Social
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Marginal planting, Removal of weir
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SW004 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF005 Project Briefing Note - Dart and Teign.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Dart and Teign River Improvement Project (DTRIP)

2016-03-15T15:14:55Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.393636602165, -3.6241149902344
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Bruce
|Main contact surname=Stockley
|Contact organisation=Westcountry Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wrt.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency, Natural England, Dartmoor National Park, the Dart Fisheries Association, the Teign Fisheries Association, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Dartmoor Hill Farm Project, Fountains Forestry, The Woodland Trust, South West water, The Forestry Commission, University of Plymouth, University College London.
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project summary=DTRIP is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to manage restoration work and to deliver habitat improvements in the Dart and Teign catchment. The partnership, led by the Westcountry Rivers Trust, has been working together for many years, carrying out river restoration and addressing the causes of Wa-ter Framework Directive issues.Through restoration work, the project will address issues including: sediment, which has a direct adverse effect on water quality; diffuse pollution from agriculture and roads, which can impact on river ecology and causes WFD failures; barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching habitat where modeling shows they should be present; interrupted conveyance of river gravels, resulting in reduced spawning habitats for salmonids; habitat loss of wetted and wooded land that has an important role to play in improving water quality & quantity; acidified moorland that creates low pH levels that are detrimental to ecological health of the rivers.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=DART
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB510804605900
|WFD water body name=DART
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/05/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=665
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund,
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Drinking water storage and supply
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Gravel Augmentation
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations, PH
|Other motivation=Economic, Social
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Marginal planting, Removal of weir
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SW004 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF005 Project Briefing Note - Dart and Teign.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Dart and Teign River Improvement Project (DTRIP)

2016-03-15T15:12:58Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.393636602165, -3.6241149902344
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Bruce
|Main contact surname=Stockley
|Contact organisation=Westcountry Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wrt.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency, Natural England, Dartmoor National Park, the Dart Fisheries Association, the Teign Fisheries Association, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Dartmoor Hill Farm Project, Fountains Forestry, The Woodland Trust, South West water, The Forestry Commission, University of Plymouth, University College London.
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project summary=DTRIP is a partnership project that will use CRF funds to manage restoration work and to deliver habitat improvements in the Dart and Teign catchment. The partnership, led by the Westcountry Rivers Trust, has been working together for many years, carrying out river restoration and addressing the causes of Wa-ter Framework Directive issues.Through restoration work, the project will address issues including: sediment, which has a direct adverse effect on water quality; diffuse pollution from agriculture and roads, which can impact on river ecology and causes WFD failures; barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching habitat where modeling shows they should be present; interrupted conveyance of river gravels, resulting in reduced spawning habitats for salmonids; habitat loss of wetted and wooded land that has an important role to play in improving water quality & quantity; acidified moorland that creates low pH levels that are detrimental to ecological health of the rivers.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=DART
}}
{{Site
|WFD water body code=GB510804605900
|WFD water body name=DART
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Drinking water storage and supply
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Gravel Augmentation
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations, PH
|Other motivation=Economic, Social
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Marginal planting, Removal of weir
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SW004 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF005 Project Briefing Note - Dart and Teign.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Dart and Teign
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Axe and Exe River Improvement Project (AERIP)

2016-03-15T15:10:08Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.9023895263671, -3.49038481712341
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=John
|Main contact surname=Hickey
|Contact organisation=Westcountry Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wrt.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=EA, South West Water, NE, Forestry Commission, Exmoor National Park Authoity, River Exe Foundation, Exe Mitigation Group, River Exe and Tributaries Association, Cannington College Bridgewater Students, Axe Vale River Association, Axe Fly Fishers, Taunton Fly Fishers, East Devon AONB, Dorset AONB, Blackdown Hills AONB, South West Rivers Association
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project summary=The Axe and Exe River Improvement Project (AERIP) is a partnership project using Catchment Restoration Funds to undertake river catchment restoration on the Axe and Exe. The partnership, led by the Westcountry Rivers Trust, has been carrying out river restoration and undertaking works to address the causes of Water Framework Directive issues for many years.
Through restoration work the project will address issues including: barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching their natural spawning grounds; diffuse pollution, the run-off of soil and nutrients which cause damage to spawning grounds and a negative impact on the wider river ecology;interrupted conveyance of river gravels reducing the spawning habitat for trout and salmon; degraded river corridor habitat, including the impacts from abandoned tree coppice and excessively eroded and poached riverbanks damaged by stock access.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site
|Name=Axe and Exe Catchments
|WFD water body code=GB108045015050, GB108045008870
|WFD water body name=AXE, EXE
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=860
|Funding sources=Defra Catchment Restoration Fund,
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Pollution incident,
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Structure & condition of riparian zones
|Biological quality elements=Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Economic, Social, Climate change mitigation
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Marginal planting, Gravel augmentation
|Floodplain / River corridor=Track creation for sediment traps
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SW005 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Axe and Exe
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF006 Project Briefing Note - Axe and Exe.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Axe and Exe
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Case study:The Axe and Exe River Improvement Project (AERIP)

2016-03-15T15:07:09Z

Hazel Wilson:

{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=50.9023895263671, -3.49038481712341
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Water quality
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=John
|Main contact surname=Hickey
|Contact organisation=Westcountry Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=www.wrt.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=EA, South West Water, NE, Forestry Commission, Exmoor National Park Authoity, River Exe Foundation, Exe Mitigation Group, River Exe and Tributaries Association, Cannington College Bridgewater Students, Axe Vale River Association, Axe Fly Fishers, Taunton Fly Fishers, East Devon AONB, Dorset AONB, Blackdown Hills AONB, South West Rivers Association
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project summary=The Axe and Exe River Improvement Project (AERIP) is a partnership project using Catchment Restoration Funds to undertake river catchment restoration on the Axe and Exe. The partnership, led by the Westcountry Rivers Trust, has been carrying out river restoration and undertaking works to address the causes of Water Framework Directive issues for many years.
Through restoration work the project will address issues including: barriers to fish migration, preventing fish from reaching their natural spawning grounds; diffuse pollution, the run-off of soil and nutrients which cause damage to spawning grounds and a negative impact on the wider river ecology;interrupted conveyance of river gravels reducing the spawning habitat for trout and salmon; degraded river corridor habitat, including the impacts from abandoned tree coppice and excessively eroded and poached riverbanks damaged by stock access.
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}

{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site
|Name=Axe and Exe Catchments
|WFD water body code=GB108045015050, GB108045008870
|WFD water body name=AXE, EXE
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2012/07/01
|Project completed=2015/03/31
|Total cost category=500 - 1000 k€
|Total1 cost=800
|Funding sources=Catchment Restoration Funds
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Pollution incident,
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Structure & condition of riparian zones
|Biological quality elements=Fish
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations,
|Other motivation=Economic, Social, Climate change mitigation
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Marginal planting, Gravel augmentation
|Floodplain / River corridor=Track creation for sediment traps
}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Biological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{Other responses header}}
{{End table}}
{{Monitoring documents}}
{{Case study monitoring documents
|Monitoring document=SW005 monitoring framework table.docx
|Description=RRC Monitoring table - Axe and Exe
}}
{{Monitoring documents end}}
{{Additional Documents}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=CRF006 Project Briefing Note - Axe and Exe.pdf
|Description=CRF Project briefing note - Axe and Exe
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references footer}}
{{Supplementary Information}}
{{Toggle content end}}