Case study:River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Case study status |Approval status=Draft }} {{Location |Location=53.015, -1.54275 }} {{Project overview |Project title=River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project |Status=Complete |Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Urban, Water quality |Country=England |Main contact forename=Jennifer |Main contact surname=Kril |Contact organis...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
|Approval status=Draft
}}
{{Location
|Location=53.015, -1.54275
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Project title=River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project
|Status=Complete
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Urban, Water quality
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Urban, Water quality
Line 14: Line 7:
|Contact organisation=Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation=Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=The River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project (Derbyshire, England) is a six‑plus year, partnership‑led programme to restore river health and reconnect migratory fish to upstream habitat.
It targeted two major barriers: Snake Lane Weir (2.5 m) and Postern Mill Weir (2 m), delivering a phased approach, removal and rock‑ramp installation at Snake Lane (Phase 1, winter 2022) and a 400 m re-meander and paleochannel reconnection at Postern Mill (Phase 2, winter 2023 – spring 2024).
The work was driven by long‑term evidence showing severe fragmentation (20+ years of Environment Agency surveys) and by the return of migratory salmon to the Derwent after earlier catchment improvements.
Interventions emphasised working with natural processes: regrading channels, creating riffle–pool sequences, restoring sediment continuity, and reconnecting floodplain and paleochannel to allow dynamic morphological adjustment.
Delivery combined technical design, regulatory oversight and blended funding from partners including Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (lead for Postern Mill), Wild Trout Trust (lead for Snake Lane), the Environment Agency, Nestlé Waters & Premium Beverages and Chatsworth Estate. Community engagement, volunteer habitat work and education were integral throughout.
The project cost exceeded £1 million (Snake Lane ~£500k; Postern Mill ~£450k) and completed physical works in 2025, with complimentary wider catchment restoration (Invasive species control, tree planting and biodiversity enhancements, with monitoring funded through 2029. The scheme sits within a coordinated catchment strategy (Derbyshire Derwent Catchment Partnership, Humber River Basin Management Plan and Derbyshire Derwent Fish Passage Project) and contributes to wider ambitions to reopen the Derwent and Trent catchments to migratory fish.
“The River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project is the result of more than six years of dedicated partnership work to improve river health and restore fish passage across the catchment."
|Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring is multimethod and repeatable, designed to measure habitat change, species response and connectivity. Core elements are: annual electrofishing at six historic EA sites to track species composition, abundance, biomass and age structure; eDNA sampling for early detection of low‑density or cryptic species; redd counts each autumn/winter to map salmon spawning distribution; fixed‑point photography and drone surveys to document geomorphic evolution; trail cameras to record wildlife use; and UKHab assessments to classify habitat condition.
Additional techniques included non‑EA electric fishing surveys, repeat visits to assess rust‑fungus biocontrol trials for invasive plants, and hydraulic/flow modelling used both in design and post‑event evaluation.
These complementary methods provide quantitative and qualitative lines of evidence for adaptive management and are repeated on a defined schedule to allow before/after and upstream/downstream comparisons.
Results:
The project reopened previously inaccessible habitat and produced clear biological responses: salmon recolonised upstream reaches within months of Snake Lane works (a spawned‑out hen found 1 km upstream), and by 2025 an Atlantic salmon parr plus several newly recorded coarse fish species were documented at Postern Mill, confirming reconnection. Electrofishing and eDNA confirm return and movement of species including Atlantic salmon, chub, grayling and gudgeon.
Morphological monitoring shows active sediment transport, evolving riffles, pools and meanders; trail cameras and public reporting demonstrate increased wildlife use and strong community interest. The scheme gained national/international attention (Dam Removal Europe finalist; Natural History Museum case study).
|Lessons learn=- Work with natural processes rather than over‑engineering: re-meandering and floodplain reconnection produced rapid geomorphic recovery and self‑sustaining habitat complexity.
- Robust evidence and modelling matter, especially under extreme weather: detailed hydraulic modelling supported design decisions and proved accurate during Storm Babet, informing emergency responses and building public confidence.
- Partnerships and blended funding accelerate delivery and broaden ownership; engaging landowners and tenant farmers early secured permissions and stewardship.
- Community engagement and transparent communication (GIS storyboards, QR codes, videos, field visits) are essential for social licence and long‑term stewardship.
Overall, the Ecclesbourne project demonstrates that targeted, evidence‑led barrier removal and channel reconnection can rapidly restore connectivity and biodiversity while delivering multiple social and climate‑resilience benefits.
|Project title=River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project
}}
{{Case study status
|Approval status=Draft
}}
{{Location
|Location=53.015, -1.54275
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Image gallery end}}

Revision as of 14:16, 18 February 2026


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status Complete
Project web site
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Urban, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Jennifer
Main contact surname Kril
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project (Derbyshire, England) is a six‑plus year, partnership‑led programme to restore river health and reconnect migratory fish to upstream habitat. It targeted two major barriers: Snake Lane Weir (2.5 m) and Postern Mill Weir (2 m), delivering a phased approach, removal and rock‑ramp installation at Snake Lane (Phase 1, winter 2022) and a 400 m re-meander and paleochannel reconnection at Postern Mill (Phase 2, winter 2023 – spring 2024). The work was driven by long‑term evidence showing severe fragmentation (20+ years of Environment Agency surveys) and by the return of migratory salmon to the Derwent after earlier catchment improvements. Interventions emphasised working with natural processes: regrading channels, creating riffle–pool sequences, restoring sediment continuity, and reconnecting floodplain and paleochannel to allow dynamic morphological adjustment. Delivery combined technical design, regulatory oversight and blended funding from partners including Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (lead for Postern Mill), Wild Trout Trust (lead for Snake Lane), the Environment Agency, Nestlé Waters & Premium Beverages and Chatsworth Estate. Community engagement, volunteer habitat work and education were integral throughout. The project cost exceeded £1 million (Snake Lane ~£500k; Postern Mill ~£450k) and completed physical works in 2025, with complimentary wider catchment restoration (Invasive species control, tree planting and biodiversity enhancements, with monitoring funded through 2029. The scheme sits within a coordinated catchment strategy (Derbyshire Derwent Catchment Partnership, Humber River Basin Management Plan and Derbyshire Derwent Fish Passage Project) and contributes to wider ambitions to reopen the Derwent and Trent catchments to migratory fish. “The River Ecclesbourne Restoration Project is the result of more than six years of dedicated partnership work to improve river health and restore fish passage across the catchment."

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Monitoring is multimethod and repeatable, designed to measure habitat change, species response and connectivity. Core elements are: annual electrofishing at six historic EA sites to track species composition, abundance, biomass and age structure; eDNA sampling for early detection of low‑density or cryptic species; redd counts each autumn/winter to map salmon spawning distribution; fixed‑point photography and drone surveys to document geomorphic evolution; trail cameras to record wildlife use; and UKHab assessments to classify habitat condition. Additional techniques included non‑EA electric fishing surveys, repeat visits to assess rust‑fungus biocontrol trials for invasive plants, and hydraulic/flow modelling used both in design and post‑event evaluation. These complementary methods provide quantitative and qualitative lines of evidence for adaptive management and are repeated on a defined schedule to allow before/after and upstream/downstream comparisons.

Results: The project reopened previously inaccessible habitat and produced clear biological responses: salmon recolonised upstream reaches within months of Snake Lane works (a spawned‑out hen found 1 km upstream), and by 2025 an Atlantic salmon parr plus several newly recorded coarse fish species were documented at Postern Mill, confirming reconnection. Electrofishing and eDNA confirm return and movement of species including Atlantic salmon, chub, grayling and gudgeon. Morphological monitoring shows active sediment transport, evolving riffles, pools and meanders; trail cameras and public reporting demonstrate increased wildlife use and strong community interest. The scheme gained national/international attention (Dam Removal Europe finalist; Natural History Museum case study).

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


- Work with natural processes rather than over‑engineering: re-meandering and floodplain reconnection produced rapid geomorphic recovery and self‑sustaining habitat complexity. - Robust evidence and modelling matter, especially under extreme weather: detailed hydraulic modelling supported design decisions and proved accurate during Storm Babet, informing emergency responses and building public confidence. - Partnerships and blended funding accelerate delivery and broaden ownership; engaging landowners and tenant farmers early secured permissions and stewardship. - Community engagement and transparent communication (GIS storyboards, QR codes, videos, field visits) are essential for social licence and long‑term stewardship.

Overall, the Ecclesbourne project demonstrates that targeted, evidence‑led barrier removal and channel reconnection can rapidly restore connectivity and biodiversity while delivering multiple social and climate‑resilience benefits.

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 53° 0' 54.00" N, 1° 32' 33.90" W
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information