Case study:Tall River: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=Complete | |Status=Complete | ||
|Themes=Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity | |Themes=Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity | ||
Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
|Contact organisation url=www.dardni.gov.uk/index/rivers.htm | |Contact organisation url=www.dardni.gov.uk/index/rivers.htm | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project picture=TallRiver 2006 | |||
|Project summary=The Tall River is a main tributary of the River Blackwater, flowing through Co. Armagh. It is a slow flowing, low energy river within an agricultural catchment. The river had been subject to an arterial drainage scheme in the 1960s, which deepened and widened the river as well as disconnecting it from its floodplain. The 1.2km Tall River scheme was the first project within Northern Ireland to address the specific need to enhance the riverine environment, rather than being attached to a larger flood prevention scheme. Works could only be carried out in-channel and on the National Trust owned right bank due to landowner restrictions. | |||
The aim of the protect was to create shallow slack-water habitat through the creation of bays. These would provide shelter for fish fry and invertebrates during high flows and aimed to increase macrophyte diversity within the reach. Stone cascades were also installed to direct flow away from potentially erodable banks. | |||
A repeat RCS carried out two years post works indicated an increase in emergent vegetation and macrophyte diversity. The bays are inundated at high flows, acting as a fish refuge, however due to siltation these may be becoming too shallow. Following the creation of stone cascades greater flow variation has been ovserved. The success of the bays appears to depend on the presence, or otherwise, of a structure deflecting water into them. | |||
If the project was to be carried out again more consideration should be given to the location of the bays within the overall flow regime or alternatively structures that would maintain flows into the bay should be included in the design. | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Case study subcatchment}} | {{Case study subcatchment}} |
Revision as of 11:40, 17 July 2013
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Judith |
Main contact surname | Bankhead |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Rivers Agency, Northern Ireland (DARDNI) |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/rivers.htm |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The Tall River is a main tributary of the River Blackwater, flowing through Co. Armagh. It is a slow flowing, low energy river within an agricultural catchment. The river had been subject to an arterial drainage scheme in the 1960s, which deepened and widened the river as well as disconnecting it from its floodplain. The 1.2km Tall River scheme was the first project within Northern Ireland to address the specific need to enhance the riverine environment, rather than being attached to a larger flood prevention scheme. Works could only be carried out in-channel and on the National Trust owned right bank due to landowner restrictions.
The aim of the protect was to create shallow slack-water habitat through the creation of bays. These would provide shelter for fish fry and invertebrates during high flows and aimed to increase macrophyte diversity within the reach. Stone cascades were also installed to direct flow away from potentially erodable banks.
A repeat RCS carried out two years post works indicated an increase in emergent vegetation and macrophyte diversity. The bays are inundated at high flows, acting as a fish refuge, however due to siltation these may be becoming too shallow. Following the creation of stone cascades greater flow variation has been ovserved. The success of the bays appears to depend on the presence, or otherwise, of a structure deflecting water into them.
If the project was to be carried out again more consideration should be given to the location of the bays within the overall flow regime or alternatively structures that would maintain flows into the bay should be included in the design.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Name | Tall River |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | 10611 |
WFD (national) typology | |
WFD water body name | |
Pre-project morphology | Over deepened, Over-widened channel as a result of arterial drainage |
Reference morphology | Narrower, Sinuous channel with shallow margins |
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 | Clay |
River corridor land use | Agriculture (arable) |
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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information