Case study:Ravensbourne/Pool confluence weir bypass channel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project summary=The existing bypass channel does not function. Requires a redesign to push more flow through it and to make it more attractive to fish. This structure just upstream of the confluence of the Ravensbourne with the Pool River. It is a sloping-back weir with a head loss of about 437 mm. Some eel passage is likely to be possible at low flows, however it is likely to be a significant barrier to fish passage. | |Project summary=The existing bypass channel does not function. Requires a redesign to push more flow through it and to make it more attractive to fish. This structure just upstream of the confluence of the Ravensbourne with the Pool River. It is a sloping-back weir with a head loss of about 437 mm. Some eel passage is likely to be possible at low flows, however it is likely to be a significant barrier to fish passage. | ||
|Lessons learn=August 2012 update - Confluence bypass channel is not complete, due to the presence of Japanese Knotweed the project could not be totally completed, a deflector was put in and the channel dug but it is not working. In base of visit in August: the channel is dry. | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Image_gallery}} | {{Image_gallery}} | ||
Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|WFD water body code=GB106039023270 | |||
|WFD water body name=Ravensbourne (Catford to Deptford) | |||
|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 88: | Line 46: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
| | |Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration | ||
|Biological quality elements=Fish | |||
|Biological quality elements= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures | ||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Bypass channel, | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} | {{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} |
Latest revision as of 11:01, 5 June 2017
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Peter |
Main contact surname | Gray |
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
The existing bypass channel does not function. Requires a redesign to push more flow through it and to make it more attractive to fish. This structure just upstream of the confluence of the Ravensbourne with the Pool River. It is a sloping-back weir with a head loss of about 437 mm. Some eel passage is likely to be possible at low flows, however it is likely to be a significant barrier to fish passage.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
August 2012 update - Confluence bypass channel is not complete, due to the presence of Japanese Knotweed the project could not be totally completed, a deflector was put in and the channel dug but it is not working. In base of visit in August: the channel is dry.
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Broadway Fields/ Seagers Distillary, Catford Greyhound Stadium, Cornmill Gardens (QUERCUS), Ladywell Fields (QUERCUS), Ladywell Fields Phase 2, Ladywell Fields to Cornmill Gardens, Ladywell Fields toeboarding, Lewisham College weir, Linear Park, QUERCUS Ravensbourne... 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
|