The meadow terrain can withstand heavy plant operating on the strip between the east side of the river and side channel and the hedge running between the meadow and the farm track (see map 2) in reasonably dry weather conditions. When operating to the west side of the side channel, heavy plant has to move material close to the river bank, which through the deposition of dredged material over the years is higher and drier that the meadows as a whole.

 

We were fortunate that there was little rain in the first three weeks of October and ground conditions were drier that they could have been. However after one mid-afternoon shower on the 10th October the approaches to the side channel started to churn up very quickly with the continuous passage of the two spoil removal tracked dumpers. Work was stopped to put in a temporary bridge of sleepers the next morning. Up until then the dumpers had crossed through the side channel, whose bed had been protected by putting down some 8t of large flint, destined for later use further upstream as part of that needed for the cattle crossing 3/riffle work.

 

A gap in the hedge, an old entry point, gave a direct access to a corner of the arable field with hard standing, next to the farm track. This route was used by the tracked dumpers to get the spoil to the arable field with minimum distance on the meadow. This made for both quicker dumper turnaround time and less wear on the meadows.

The hard standing was used to stockpile the 20t loads of stone and gravel coming from a local quarry.

 

Sampling at two of the highest areas of spoil had indicated that there was sufficient stone and gravel present to make it worthwhile to carry out a machine riddling (grading) operation off-site at the arable field work station. However once the top six inches of nettle cover and soil was removed across much of the area it was clear that the yield would be small and this approach was abandoned.

 

However some 10t of larger stone was recovered by hand from the spoil, either at the river bank area, or where it was heaped and then later spread over the field. A local Cemex (RMC) quarry, less than 3 miles away, supplied 60t of reject flint; and 40t of 20-40mm gravel, all that was used. This was obtained at a favourable price through the NWT. Another 40t of reject flint came from a small disused pit on the Bayfield estate, also a journey of 4-6 km, and no charge was made for this material; and another 5t came from a stock adjacent to the site.

 

So in all we used some 115t of reject flint and 40t of gravel over six areas on the main river,  4 riffles and two cattle crossings serving a dual purpose also a riffle. The total length of these was some 62 metres. The plan had been to make more and longer riffle areas and use some 300t of reject flint and 100t of gravel but when costed out it was clear that we would exceed budget if we bought in more reject flint and gravel.

 

The other material requiring heavy plant to move about, a tracked digger with lifting chains, was sections of tree trunk of 4.5- 5.5 metres in length and between 300 and 600 millimetres in diameter. These were used as flow deflectors and one end set in the bank with an up-stream angle of about  30 degrees. Nine sections were required, and all were drawn from the 6 sycamores that had been felled in the preparation stage.

 

The main wood material used was hazel, and in the plan was to be designated for bank narrowing, with a smaller amount for the island work. As part of the preparations leading up to the work in the second half of September 120 hazel faggots were made from material cut from trees on the Bayfield estate. The bundles were some 2 metres long and 300 millimetres in diameter.

 

It was estimated that we would need some 200 stout stakes for river narrowing. Chestnut was not available so we bought 200 hazel, which in fact were a mix (in decreasing thickness) of stakes, and baton and peg material. We also purchased 30 long round posts with pointed ends, mainly to secure the tree trunk sections. In terms of our budget these materials were costly to buy as opposed to having access to hazel at no charge and cutting and producing with voluntary labour.

 

Once much of the spoil was removed from the bank of the upper middle reach meadow it was clear that the re-profiled bank would have to be protected against higher river flows and any major flood event. The bank would be vulnerable to breaking off until such time the whole area has time to develop vegetation and bind the bank soil. This could have been foreseen, but not to the extent of the overall requirement and vulnerability. This was because the river at this point was revealed as far more sinuous, and with some sharp bends, than could be appreciated with the spoil bank in place.

 

This 122 metres length of meadow frontage, increased to some 130 metres by the winding course of the river, was protected by the same revetment technique as used for river narrowing, but the outer line of stakes were set much closer to the bank. It required 97 stakes, and the same number each for bank side pegs and the batons to be set at a diagonal to stakes and peg. The river “facing” to the revetment required about 70 hazel faggots; about 20 remained from the Bayfield 120, leaving another 50 to be made up.

 

These 50 faggots, the stakes, batons and pegs, and the soft filling brash, were obtained by coppicing 10 hazel trees on the lower part of meadows. The temporary bridge across the side channel proved its worth again as it enabled the movement of the bulky material to be done with a Land Rover and trailer. There was zero wastage of material in this exercise.

 

Seven of the hazel trees were 13 years old, grown from saplings, and this was the first coppicing. The other three were mature trees. The river is shallower here than downstream, and the stakes were around some 1.2m- 1.5m in length and

50-75 mm in diameter, the batons and pegs about 50 mm in thickness.

LOGISTICS