Case study:Spring Meadow Meander Restoration: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 44: Line 44:
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=2013-10-24 12.44.15.jpg
|File name=2013-10-24 12.44.15.jpg
|Caption=Re-instated meander, looking upstream - © Nick Elbourne (RRC), October 2013
|Caption=Re-instated meander, looking downstream - © Nick Elbourne (RRC), October 2013
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image

Revision as of 11:56, 11 December 2013

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

4.33
(3 votes)


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


Location: 50° 59' 57.25" N, 0° 0' 29.26" 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 Complete
Project web site http://www.oart.org.uk/projects/morph-sheffield-park.htm
Themes Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring
Country England
Main contact forename Peter
Main contact surname King
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Ouse and Adur Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site http://www.oart.org.uk/
Partner organisations Environment Agency, Royal HaskoningDHV, C A Blackwell
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Restored meander approximately one year following project works - © Nick Elbourne (RRC), October 2013

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The project is one of thirteen projects within the Middle Ouse Restoration of Physical Habitats (MORPH) project; led by the Environment Agency in partnership with the Ouse & Adur Rivers Trust (OART) & supported by Royal HaskoningDHV (design, engineering and environmental consultancy services) and C A Blackwell (contractor for the implementation works). Each of these project is being considered individually but also in terms of how they will work in conjunction with each other to improve the diversity of the river and reduce flood risk.

The Spring Meadow project had its own specific aims: - Reinstate the historic course of the river through the re-excavation of the visible meander; - Increase in channel habitat diversity for multiple fish species; - Increase floodplain functioning through new bank profiling; - Increase overall biodiversity to the area; - Restore existing wet meadow habitats.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Working with University of Brighton, the project has set up a long term monitoring programme to look at and assess geomorphological changes, seed dispersal of Himalayan Balsam, and hay meadow restoration techniques.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


The design of the new two-stage channel (incorporating a low flow channel) has increased water depth during low flows. In combination with a greater variety of channel widths and depths, this has increased habitat diversity which should benefit fish populations.

Within a year of the project works, native vegetation had begun to establish on the banks. This will provide shelter and feeding areas for fish during high flows and will increase habitat for invertebrate species such as dragonflies, beetles and fly species.

The newly created backwater will provide refuge for juveile fish, create warmer conditions and shallow refugia as nursey areas for young amphibians and invertebrates which live in still water. The introduction of woody material provides shelter during low flows and marginal shelves will become vegetated and provide areas for feeding and resting.

Out of channel habitat enhancement of floodplain woodland and additional lateral connectivity is expected to lead to improvements in the biodiversity value of the landscape (wet meadow habitats are nationally rare) & reduce flood risk downstream by increasing capacity for floodwaters.

The public have been consulted and kept informed of progress throughout the project, building local support for river restoration and its associated benefits.


Image gallery


Upstream part of the project where Himalayan Balsam will need to be managed - © Nick Elbourne (RRC), October 2013
Re-instated meander, looking downstream - © Nick Elbourne (RRC), October 2013
Constructed river crossing (Ford) - © Nick Elbourne (RRC), October 2013
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and 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



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information