Skip to main content

Appraisal of trial LWD work on the Goyt

Project overview
Disley and New Mills Angling Club (DNMAC) secured Environment Agency (EA) funding for habitat work to preserve and encourage wild trout populations on their sections of the River Goyt. The funding was provided following an initial Advisory Visit (AV) from the Wild Trout Trust (WTT) and lead to a Practical Visit (PV) in partnership with the local EA Operations Delivery team.
Violent spate flows in the River Goyt mean that many common river restoration practices cannot be adopted (as work would quickly be destroyed). Therefore, an innovative programme of channel enhancement through robust Large Woody Debris (LWD) management was drawn up. Invertebrate community monitoring was also proposed so that DNMAC could protect their river from pollution events and investigate potential biological effects of channel management.

Major Goals

  1. Generate cover for fish (adult and juvenile) and protect banks from excessive erosion at 26 identified locations using “tree kickers” parallel to the river bank (Fig. 1).

  2. Installation of flow deflectors (Fig. 2) to generate localised scour/gravel sorting (initially limited to trial sites; with future installations at appropriate sites by DNMAC)

  3. Train a core of 4 DNMAC members to identify important invertebrate families (with core members subsequently training others)

  4. Establish an invertebrate monitoring programme

Phased approach to LWD installation

Although desirable from a fisheries and biodiversity perspective, the EA must balance potential benefits of LWD against the risk of anchor failure/bridge blockage associated with 26 tree kicker/flow deflector installations. Therefore, an initial trial was agreed using two groups of tree kickers (4 trees at Strines, 5 at Hague Bar). More extensive future works (involving further tree kickers and flow deflectors) could only be considered if the anchoring techniques were proven in the test scenario.
Figure 1: Tree kicker in summer spate and winter low flow

Figure 2: Example of LWD installed to produce localised scour (adult/juvenile habitat) and sorted gravel (spawning habitat). Short logs (1 to 3 m) are ideal and pose negligible threat of blockage to downstream structures (in the unlikely event of anchor failure)

Profile of Phase 1 work results
Direct effects
The percentage of each goal that has been attained as a direct result of Phase 1 trials is summarised graphically (Fig. 3). The agreed restriction on the number of LWD installations during such trials means that about one third of the proposed tree kicker installation goal has been achieved (N.B. the final number of tree kickers will be determined by ecological needs and available resources, rather than an arbitrary 26 based on initial assessments of candidate sites). It is noted that two tree kickers have settled in positions that mean they only function during very high flows (Fig. 3; highlighted column and Fig. 4). Whilst these will still give some erosion protection during spate flows; the resultant cover during low flows will be below their maximum potential. It is, however, important to acknowledge that all tree kickers are providing crucial shelter during spate flows that will help to prevent the washout of juvenile fish. Young grayling are particularly susceptible to washout by storm flows – and often whole year

Figure 3: Progress towards Phase 1 (trial work) goals. Works completed by September 2008 and assessed April 2009.

classes can be lost during summer spates. The accumulation of fine sediment by tree kickers (Fig. 5) shows their great capacity to calm the torrential spate flows; helping to prevent large scale losses of juvenile fish. Moreover, the 100% success rate of safely retaining tree kickers at their anchor points is encouraging – and is good evidence that the cabling technique is effective. It is particularly important to note that very substantial amounts of naturally occurring debris washed up against the bridge parapets at Strines (including a huge mature tree), whilst the installed LWD held firm over the same period.
The current trial will help “fine tune” the positioning of future tree kickers to improve the chances that they will perform optimally at all water heights. In particular, it is noted that tree kicker installation will function at the greatest variety of water heights where trees are anchored into areas of deep water. Such areas are best identified under summer low flow conditions. The re-assessment and appropriate repositioning of trees following a season of spate flows is a desirable part of LWD management. In certain cases, it may be appropriate to add rebar pins to trees that have been anchored by cables (to achieve specific positioning within the channel).
Each of the above modifications to future practice has been identified by assessing the direct results of the Phase 1 habitat works. As well as the physical habitat works, the successful training of four core invertebrate monitors is noted (Fig 3) and is intended to lead to further peer group training and a continual monitoring programme.

Figure 4: Although performing useful roles at high flows – the post-spate positions of these two tree kickers mean they are performing a more limited function during low flow conditions

Figure 5: Clear demonstration of the “stilling” effect of tree kickers during spate flows. The sediment carried by the spate flows has been dropped out of suspension where the flow has been calmed by the branches. These calmed areas are havens for juvenile fish during spates

Future Consequences
Although the invertebrate monitoring programme is still in very early stages, it is hoped that future changes to habitat (and fluctuations in water quality) will be flagged up as a result of this work. Similarly, producing and monitoring fishery catch returns could be considered (and would provide valuable additional interpretations of the biological consequences of habitat modification).
In all cases, “ before” and “after” photographs will be invaluable. Photography could be coupled with simple depth measurements over the cross section of the channel where flow deflectors are to be installed (again pre and post works). Together, these could indicate the consequences for current flow and bed morphology resulting from flow deflector installation.
It is hoped that all of these “consequential benefits” will be assessed and can be plotted following the next phase of habitat works. Although each measurement is very simple to carry out, important conclusions can be drawn from the results. Not only will concrete benefits of the work be clearly identified, but also the need for future improvements and modifications to habitat works will become absolutely obvious.


Popular posts from this blog

First Survey Record of Wild Trout Returning to Lyme Brook Habitat Works Site!

You may have seen the first three phases of works on the middle reaches of the Lyme Brook (shown in previous blogs Here and Here) from project works that began in 2015...

Well although the first surveys after that work found some nice coarse fish populations - there was no cold hard evidence that any trout had found the newly-improved habitat...Until now!
I received a phone call today from Matt Lawrence who is the EA's Catchment Host for the Trent Valley Catchment Partnership (with key partners Groundwork West Midlands and the Wild Trout Trust who conceived and delivered the habitat works). Matt told me that he'd had some exciting preliminary reports from a EA Midlands fisheries surveys team. Their survey on 7th September had caught several wild trout as part of their sample on the habitat works site.
These are the first modern records of trout in the brook and is also the exciting news that we have been waiting for on these first phases of work to create spawning, juvenile an…

How Volunteers in Sheffield Make Big River Habitat Projects Successful

You've done a big, ambitious partnership project to deculvert a section of urban stream, but now the civil engineering contractors have gone to their next job. The site is left to mature...what next? Very seldom does this kind of project have any budget for ongoing ecological monitoring (which is a frequent and justified criticism of habitat improvement works - the lack of ecological effect data).

The same can be said for general "husbandry" of the site - whether it be litter or invasive plant control; or even fairly substantial running repairs...

Step in SPRITE (Sheffield Partnership for Rivers in Town Environments) whose site you can check out on, the Sheffield Trout in the Town group and a supporting donation of pre-established planted coir products from Salix River and Wetland Ltd. (with their site here:

You can see SPRITE talking about their aquatic invertebrate monitoring and see their repair and site care wo…

A previously buried section of stream produces the first fly caught trout in >160 years

As near as I can work out from the archaeology report, this section of river - recently brought back to the surface in dramatic fashion by Sheffield City Council, the EA and the WTT partnership - was buried in a low brick tunnel somewhere around 1853 to 1868. The northern half of the site was certainly buried underground BEFORE the time the 1853 map was produced....and the rest of the brick tunnel was placed over the top of the stream before the map of 1868...

Of course, it is not easy to tell what the water quality was like in that section even BEFORE the stream was buried...and whether there were trout surviving in the stream when it was sealed underground...

What is damned sure is that you couldn't wave a fly fishing rod around in that underground tunnel once they'd built it!

This was still the case until the completion of the massive project to remove the brickwork and create an attractive "pocket park" in the city centre. You might have seen from This Previous …