Case study:Knock Burn low flow channel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location | ||
|Location= | |Location=54.599451469902306, -5.839163661003113 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Main contact surname=Bankhead | |Main contact surname=Bankhead | ||
|Main contact id=judithbankhead | |Main contact id=judithbankhead | ||
|Contact organisation=Rivers Agency | |Contact organisation=Rivers Agency Northern Ireland (DARDNI) | ||
|Contact organisation url=www.dardni.gov.uk/rivers | |Contact organisation url=www.dardni.gov.uk/rivers | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project picture=Knock Burn.JPG | |Project picture=Knock Burn.JPG | ||
|Picture description=Knock Burn low flow channel post works | |Picture description=Knock Burn low flow channel post works | ||
|Project summary=As part of a larger biodiversity project for Stormont Estate, enhancement works were required for the Knock Burn. The burn had been overwidened in past years, resulting in a shallow, slow flowing channel, which required regular maintenance due to silt accumulation. It was decided to cretae a sinuous low flow channel, using the silt and bed material to creat a narrower, faster flowing channel. No additional materials were added to the channel, and land drainage was picked up during the new channel creation. All 200m of the project was completed in one day, using a mini digger | |Project summary=As part of a larger biodiversity project for Stormont Estate, enhancement works were required for the Knock Burn. The burn had been overwidened in past years, resulting in a shallow, slow flowing channel, which required regular maintenance due to silt accumulation. It was decided to cretae a sinuous low flow channel, using the silt and bed material to creat a narrower, faster flowing channel. No additional materials were added to the channel, and land drainage was picked up during the new channel creation. All 200m of the project was completed in one day, using a mini digger. The planform of the channel was designed on site, by working downstream and trying to follow the flow patterns as they appeared. | ||
|Monitoring surveys and results=Pre and post photographs were taken. A standard maintenance post audit form was completed 9 months after the project was completed. Annual photography is used to monitor the project. | |Monitoring surveys and results=Pre and post photographs were taken. A standard maintenance post audit form was completed 9 months after the project was completed. Annual photography is used to monitor the project. Assessment carried out during photography shows that the channel is maintaining itself overall, with fish present (which had not been the case before). Wetland vegetation has developed on the secondary channel, helping to stabilise the silty substrate | ||
|Lessons learn=Be opportunistic. The upper stretch of the work has been more successful than the lower reach, probably due to a backwater effect from a pond at the downstream end, and partially due to the reduction of energy through the full reach. Since completion in 2011, no further maintenance work has been required (up to 2014), which is a cost savings for the Agency. | |Lessons learn=Be opportunistic. The upper stretch of the work has been more successful than the lower reach, probably due to a backwater effect from a pond at the downstream end, and partially due to the reduction of energy through the full reach. Since completion in 2011, no further maintenance work has been required (up to 2014), which is a cost savings for the Agency. | ||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
{{Toggle content start}} | {{Toggle content start}} | ||
{{Case study subcatchment}} | {{Case study subcatchment}} | ||
{{Site}} | {{Site | ||
{{Project background}} | |Name=Knock Burn | ||
{{Motivations}} | |WFD water body code=GBNI1NE050503087 | ||
{{Measures}} | |WFD water body name=Lagan | ||
|Pre-project morphology=Artificial channel, | |||
|Desired post project morphology=Low gradient passively meandering, | |||
|Heavily modified water body=Yes | |||
|Local site designation=None | |||
|Protected species present=No | |||
|Invasive species present=No | |||
|Dominant hydrology=Artificially regulated, | |||
|Dominant substrate=Silt, | |||
|River corridor land use=Parklands garden, | |||
|Average bankfull channel width category=2 - 5 m | |||
|Average bankfull channel depth category=Less than 0.5 m | |||
|Mean discharge category=0.1 - 1.0 m³/s | |||
|Average channel gradient category=0.001 - 0.01 | |||
}} | |||
{{Project background | |||
|Reach length directly affected=200m | |||
|Project started=2010/12/02 | |||
|Works started=2011/01/24 | |||
|Works completed=2011/01/24 | |||
|Project completed=2011/01/25 | |||
|Total cost category=Less than 1 k€ | |||
|Funding sources=Department for Agriculture and Rural Development - Rivers Agency, | |||
|Investigation and design cost category=Less than 1 k€ | |||
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Department of Agriculture & Rural Development Rivers Agency | |||
|Investigation and design Other contact forename=Judith | |||
|Investigation and design Other contact surname=Bankhead | |||
|Stakeholder1 engagement cost category=Less than 1 k€ | |||
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=Department of Agriculture & Rural Development Rivers Agency | |||
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=Judith | |||
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Bankhead | |||
|Works1 and supervision cost category=Less than 1 k€ | |||
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Department of Agriculture & Rural Development Rivers Agency | |||
|Works and supervision Other contact forename=Judith | |||
|Works and supervision Other contact surname=Bankhead | |||
|Post-project1 management and maintenance cost category=Less than 1 k€ | |||
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=Department of Agriculture & Rural Development Rivers Agency | |||
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact forename=Judith | |||
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact surname=Bankhead | |||
|Monitoring1 cost category=Less than 1 k€ | |||
|Monitoring Lead organisation=Department of Agriculture & Rural Development Rivers Agency | |||
|Monitoring Other contact forename=Judith | |||
|Monitoring Other contact surname=Bankhead | |||
|Supplementary funding information=Work carried out under the auspices of maintenance of the designated watercourse - adaptive mainteneace | |||
}} | |||
{{Motivations | |||
|Specific mitigation=aim to creat more sustainable and environmentally improved channel | |||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=over widened watercourse with laminar slow flow | |||
|Biological quality elements=lack of fish life | |||
|Other motivation=part of estate biodiversity plan. Maintenance benefits for Rivers Agency | |||
}} | |||
{{Measures | |||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Creation of low flow channel, | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Re-meandering, | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Channel pattern/planform | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Biological quality elements header}} | {{Biological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Fish | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macrophytes | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} |
Latest revision as of 12:12, 6 June 2017
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Environmental flows and water resources, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban |
Country | Northern Ireland |
Main contact forename | Judith |
Main contact surname | Bankhead |
Main contact user ID | User:judithbankhead |
Contact organisation | Rivers Agency Northern Ireland (DARDNI) |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.dardni.gov.uk/rivers |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
As part of a larger biodiversity project for Stormont Estate, enhancement works were required for the Knock Burn. The burn had been overwidened in past years, resulting in a shallow, slow flowing channel, which required regular maintenance due to silt accumulation. It was decided to cretae a sinuous low flow channel, using the silt and bed material to creat a narrower, faster flowing channel. No additional materials were added to the channel, and land drainage was picked up during the new channel creation. All 200m of the project was completed in one day, using a mini digger. The planform of the channel was designed on site, by working downstream and trying to follow the flow patterns as they appeared.
Monitoring surveys and results
Pre and post photographs were taken. A standard maintenance post audit form was completed 9 months after the project was completed. Annual photography is used to monitor the project. Assessment carried out during photography shows that the channel is maintaining itself overall, with fish present (which had not been the case before). Wetland vegetation has developed on the secondary channel, helping to stabilise the silty substrate
Lessons learnt
Be opportunistic. The upper stretch of the work has been more successful than the lower reach, probably due to a backwater effect from a pond at the downstream end, and partially due to the reduction of energy through the full reach. Since completion in 2011, no further maintenance work has been required (up to 2014), which is a cost savings for the Agency.
The technique will be used again in future projects.
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Supplementary funding informationWork carried out under the auspices of maintenance of the designated watercourse - adaptive mainteneace
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
|