Case study:Richmond Park: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|WFD water body code=GB106039022850 | |||
|WFD water body name=Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |||
|Protected species present=No | |||
|WFD water body code= | |Invasive species present=No | ||
|WFD water body name= | |||
|Heavily modified water body= | |||
|Protected species present= | |||
|Invasive species present= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project_background | {{Project_background | ||
Line 159: | Line 116: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures | ||
|Bank and bed modifications measure= | |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank reprofiling | ||
|Floodplain / River corridor=Tree management | |||
|Floodplain / River corridor= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} | {{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} |
Latest revision as of 10:44, 27 October 2015
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Planned |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Flood risk management |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Joanna |
Main contact surname | Heisse |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Desire to enhance the brook has been flagged up in the revised management plan for Richmond Park. To create some inchannel and bankside diversity through a techniques such as timber fenders and marginal berms to encourage growth of plant species where poaching is less of an issue. Longer term benefits could include suitable habitat for water vole. Benefits for important bat populations, fish etc. Previous thoughts have raised potential for flood storage too. Straight channel with minimal inchannel and bankside vegetation. Heavily poached by deer and dogs in the channel. Extensive use of bank by people. No riparian vegetation. Channel is used by bats and kingfishers however.
Early preparation stage (LRAP update August 2010)
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Anton Crescent Wetlands Regeneration, Ashlone Wharf FCRM scheme, Barn Elms Sports Ground, Barn Elms Wetland Centre, South West London, Barnes Common, Barnes Common improvements, Beverley Brook Flow control structures, Beverley Brook d/s of Rock’s Lane, Beverley Park, Cuddington Park... 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
|