Case study:Clayton Vale: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=In progress | |Status=In progress | ||
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology | |Themes=Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Urban | ||
|Country=England | |Country=England | ||
|Main contact forename=Oliver | |Main contact forename=Oliver | ||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|Project summary=Manchester City Council identified that the Clayton Vale portion of the study area (east of Bank Bridge Road) was occupied by a historical landfill site, which was used for the disposal of ash cinders from the Stuart Street Power Station and as a municipal landfill. Consultants Atkins are in the process of undertaking ground investigations to determine leachate, groundwater and soil contamination including waste characterisation testing to determine the status of these materials and to allow an effective remediation strategy to be developed for the any river channel/corridor restoration works and to prevent the creation of new pollutant linkages or the exacerbation of existing ones, in upstream demonstration area. | |Project summary=Manchester City Council identified that the Clayton Vale portion of the study area (east of Bank Bridge Road) was occupied by a historical landfill site, which was used for the disposal of ash cinders from the Stuart Street Power Station and as a municipal landfill. Consultants Atkins are in the process of undertaking ground investigations to determine leachate, groundwater and soil contamination including waste characterisation testing to determine the status of these materials and to allow an effective remediation strategy to be developed for the any river channel/corridor restoration works and to prevent the creation of new pollutant linkages or the exacerbation of existing ones, in upstream demonstration area. | ||
It will be a huge achievement if we can restore this most heavily degraded section of waterbody, but the aspiration is to create a safe riverine environment for all, reconnect and integrate the river corridor back with the adjoining greenspace and public parks, and restore the river so that it is capable of supporting diverse aquatic fauna once more. | It will be a huge achievement if we can restore this most heavily degraded section of waterbody, but the aspiration is to create a safe riverine environment for all, reconnect and integrate the river corridor back with the adjoining greenspace and public parks, and restore the river so that it is capable of supporting diverse aquatic fauna once more. | ||
}} | |||
{{Image gallery}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=River Medlock weir Clayton Vale.png | |||
|Caption=Weir prior to works | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Image gallery end}} | |||
{{Toggle button}} | |||
{{Toggle content start}} | |||
{{Case study subcatchment | {{Case study subcatchment | ||
|Subcatchment=River Medlock | |Subcatchment=River Medlock (Lumb Brook to Irwell) | ||
}} | |||
{{Site | |||
|WFD water body code=GB112069061152 | |||
|WFD water body name=River Medlock (Lumb Brook to Irwell) | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |||
|Protected species present=No | |||
|Invasive species present=No | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project background}} | {{Project background}} | ||
{{Motivations}} | {{Motivations | ||
{{Measures}} | |Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, | ||
|Biological quality elements=Fish, | |||
}} | |||
{{Measures | |||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Weir removal, | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
Line 38: | Line 56: | ||
{{Monitoring documents}} | {{Monitoring documents}} | ||
{{Monitoring documents end}} | {{Monitoring documents end}} | ||
{{Additional Documents}} | {{Additional Documents}} | ||
{{Additional Documents end}} | {{Additional Documents end}} | ||
Line 49: | Line 61: | ||
{{Additional links and references footer}} | {{Additional links and references footer}} | ||
{{Supplementary Information}} | {{Supplementary Information}} | ||
{{Toggle content end}} |
Latest revision as of 15:05, 23 October 2015
Project overview
Status | In progress |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Urban |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Oliver |
Main contact surname | Southgate |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Manchester City Council identified that the Clayton Vale portion of the study area (east of Bank Bridge Road) was occupied by a historical landfill site, which was used for the disposal of ash cinders from the Stuart Street Power Station and as a municipal landfill. Consultants Atkins are in the process of undertaking ground investigations to determine leachate, groundwater and soil contamination including waste characterisation testing to determine the status of these materials and to allow an effective remediation strategy to be developed for the any river channel/corridor restoration works and to prevent the creation of new pollutant linkages or the exacerbation of existing ones, in upstream demonstration area.
It will be a huge achievement if we can restore this most heavily degraded section of waterbody, but the aspiration is to create a safe riverine environment for all, reconnect and integrate the river corridor back with the adjoining greenspace and public parks, and restore the river so that it is capable of supporting diverse aquatic fauna once more.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Philips Park, River Irwell Restoration Project
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
|