Case study:EDF Weir removal: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
| | |Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Impoundments (not hydropower) | ||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures |
Revision as of 10:00, 25 April 2014
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | In progress |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Dave |
Main contact surname | Bartlett |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Notching of weir and /or attachment of brushes for eel migration. Tidal Creek of the wandle has a number of structures causing a barrier to fish passage and holding back water causing a decline in diversity. This will create an easy to do project and make the river more accessible.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Beddington Park, Beddington Park Enhancements, Boulder Pool and Plough Lane, Durand Close, Eel Pass over tilting weir at Ravensbury Park, Garratt Park, Hackbridge Restoration, Hackbridge weir notch, King Georges Park, Medland Close, River Wandle... further results
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|