Case study:River Irwell Restoration Project: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location |
Revision as of 15:59, 5 September 2013
Project overview
Status | In progress |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Flood risk management, Hydromorphology |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Oliver |
Main contact surname | Southgate |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | Groundwork, Natural England |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
Castle Irwell Urban Wetland, Clayton Vale, Goshen Weir removal project, River Roch, Bury, Philips Park |
Project summary
The River Irwell Restoratio Project plans to restore urban watercourses in an effort to achieve good ecological status for the watercourse. Such plans must be viewed against the considerable economic and physical constraints imposed on such rivers due to their setting, in particular the need to maintain or even enhance flood protection levels and to ensure infrastructure remains uncompromised. A restoration plan was developed for the heavily modified River Medlock at Clayton Vale and Philips Park, Manchester. The principal aims of the study were driven by opportunities to improve the hydromorphological and ecological status of the watercourse through naturalisation, working to develop a watercourse where the reinstated channel units function to temporarily store coarse sediment creating dynamic habitat within a restricted urban environment.
Known as the ‘Red River’ due to the brick lining along the study reach constructed in 1912, the present U-shaped 'flume' has created conditions with limited in-channel morphology (occasional berm top fine sediments) and flow diversity (a monotonous run due to the almost uniform width and depth along the reach). No significant sediment storage occurs, despite a strong coarse sediment supply, as a consequence of the unchanging steep gradient and immovable planform (the brick-lined banks have restricted any lateral movement of the watercourse locally) creating a uniform, high energy, transporting reach and preventing any sediment deposition on the channel bed. Under present flow conditions, the high velocities are considered to be a barrier to fish passage, due to velocities of >2m/s under low flow conditions and 3-4m/s during higher flow events within the channel.
The River Medlock at Clayton Vale and Philips Park is designated as a Heavily Modified Waterbody. At present the Water Framework Directive (WFD) defines the overall river status as Poor Ecological Potential, but with a target of reaching Good Ecological Potential by 2027. Restoration needed to be mindful of impacts locally, and upstream and downstream of Clayton Vale and Philips Park, including impacts on flood risk given the highly urbanised nature of the catchment. Removing the brick-lining and concrete base layer, without managing the steep gradient and high energy levels of the River Medlock could create uncontrolled destabilisation. Therefore, removal had be considered alongside morphological restoration and naturalisation through Clayton Vale and Philips Park to ensure a 'dynamically stable' restoration was implemented and that historic features lining the watercourse were not compromised.
Consultation throughout the restoration plan development highlighted the ‘stand-off’ between the objective of river naturalisation and the ‘need’ for stability. The River Medlock at Clayton Vale and Philips Park would be a dynamic, active single thread river if not constrained by the brick – lining flume. Upstream analogue features (including, rapids, riffles and pools) and hydraulic modelling were used to carefully design and size functional, dynamically ‘stable’ morphological features to manage the high energy system following removal of the concrete and brick lining. Engineering concerns remained over the potential for ongoing lateral erosion that could threaten local historic walls and public footpaths. Compromise was therefore necessary to satisfy the project board before works could be undertaken, however, the majority of the restoration objectives for naturalisation were approved and the results of the first stage of the project and initial river response is reported here.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this 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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information