Case study:River Dearne at Mexborough: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
|Floodplain / River corridor=Creation of backwaters, | |Floodplain / River corridor=Creation of backwaters, | ||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel narrowing, Creation of backwater, | |Planform / Channel pattern=Channel narrowing, Creation of backwater, | ||
|Management interventions=Reduced maintenance | |Management interventions=Reduced maintenance, | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} |
Latest revision as of 11:09, 5 June 2017
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Chris |
Main contact surname | Firth |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Don Catchment Rivers Trust |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.dcrt.org.uk/ |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The lower River Dearne had suffered substantial changes to its natural gradient as a result of subsidence problems cause by deep mining operations. To alleviate this problem a new straight and over-wide river was created in the 1970s to ensure efficient evacuation of floodwaters.
This resulted in physical uniformity of the channel, poor water quality and a lack of habitats for fish and other species.
The restoration scheme drastically reduced the width of the channel (10m to 5.5m) by creating a sinuous course and low flow channel using large boulders to create berms. Flood capacity was maintained by ensuring the in-channel structures were kept to a low level and the berms were designed to be submerged during high flow events. The design included three small backwaters and scrapes and the low berms were created at a variety of levels to enable the establishment of a range of riparian communities and provide habitats for a range of species.
Reduced maintenance (est. £2, 500-£3, 000 reduction in maintenance costs per year)
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
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
|