Case study:Source to Sea Programme – 2. Pan-Morecambe Bay Wetlands and Waterbodies Restoration

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


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


Location: 54° 1' 49.52" N, 2° 49' 13.66" W
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status In progress
Project web site
Themes Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Social benefits, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Richard
Main contact surname Storton
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation RSPB
Contact organisation web site http://http://www.rspb.org.uk/
Partner organisations Cumbria Wildlife Trust, Cumbria Woodlands, Lune Rivers Trust, Morecambe Bay Partnership, Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership
Parent multi-site project

Case study:Source to Sea Programme

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Fairfield Community project: New pond and cattle fenced out of wetlands

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Morecambe Bay and its river catchments should be considered as one interacting entity. This project will target the floodplains of waterbodies that are failing for diffuse pollution and morphological reasons. Remedial measures identified by the EA to benefit WFD objectives on these waterbodies and protected sites include: • Improve floodplain connectivity • Enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitats (preserve and restore) • Water level management • Attenuate flows to mitigate for drainage impacts • Diffuse pollution for phosphates and ammonia

The project will offer targeted advice to farmers and landowners, to deliver floodplain habitat improvements will contribute to addressing these WFD issues. Working with EA, NE and local farmers and landowners the project will employ a Wetland Advisor and Woodland Advisor (0.5), to contribute to improving WFD status and secure priority habitats and species benefits through a programme of habitat improvement work.

Advisers would primarily secure benefits via agri-environment (HLS/ELS) deployment on these farms and forestry grant schemes. Additionally, a capital fund is proposed, allowing beneficial works on sites where HLS may not be available. Two large capital projects proposed include the restoration of two lowland raised bogs. Demonstration sites will be used to show others the benefits of management to deliver WFD (and other) outcomes.

Community Involvement - Engagement activities will include public consultations, practical volunteering activities like tree planting and awareness-raising through media and face-to-face contact.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


Savinhill Moss - tree clearance and abstraction by horse
Savinhill Moss - Trees cleared of active peat dome
Fairfield Community project - Cattle crossing point and fencing.
Fairfield Community project: Wet grassland creation.
Hale Moss - Ditch restoration.
Hale Moss: new pipe sluice.
Haybridge: wet grassland site.
Holgates Bay View: wet grassland restoration with new stock fencing
Overthwaite: wet grassland restoration.
Sunderland Brows: wet grassland ditch creation.
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB 53 120 721 2100, GB 11 207 206 5840, GB 11 207 206 5880, GB 11 207 307 1260, GB 11 207 307 1220, GB 11 207 307 1300, GB 11 207 307 1050, GB 11 207 307 1240, GB 11 207 306 4450, GB 11 207 206 5860, GB 11 207 206 5850
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
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 2012/06/28
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2015/03/31
Total cost category 1000 - 5000 k€
Total cost (k€) 13501,350 k€ <br />1,350,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Catchment Restoration Funds

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 Diffuse pollution
Hydromorphology Quantity & dynamics of flow, Continuity for organisms, Continuity of sediment transport
Biology Fish
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Blocking of certain grips, Tree planting
Floodplain / River corridor Creation of wetland, Improving fish migration
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Awareness raising, Media
Other Practical volunteering activities, Public consultation


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