Case study:Beverley Brook Flow control structures: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation url=www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
|Contact organisation url=www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
|Partner organisations=Friends of Barnes Common, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames,  
|Partner organisations=Friends of Barnes Common, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames,
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=Model the effects of altering the two flow control structures with a view to sending more low flows down the natural channel and taking excess flow downs the two culverts when water levels rise. The Beverley Brook natural channel only takes 20% of the flow during normal flow rates, which impacts the geomorphology, silt carrying capacity and habitat value of the brook downstream of the flow control structures.
|Project summary=Model the effects of altering the two flow control structures with a view to sending more low flows down the natural channel and taking excess flow downs the two culverts when water levels rise. The Beverley Brook natural channel only takes 20% of the flow during normal flow rates, which impacts the geomorphology, silt carrying capacity and habitat value of the brook downstream of the flow control structures.
Line 111: Line 111:
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=
|Specific mitigation=Impoundments (not hydropower),
   
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Channel pattern/planform, Freshwater flow regime,
   
     
|Biological quality elements=
     
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
     
|Specific mitigation=
     
|Other motivation=
     
}}
}}
{{Measures
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=
|Management interventions=Modelling, Monitoring strategy,
   
   
     
|Floodplain / River corridor=
     
|Planform / Channel pattern=
     
|Other technical measure=
     
|Management interventions=
     
|Social measures=
     
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=
     
}}
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}

Latest revision as of 15:16, 6 June 2017

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 51° 27' 56.77" N, 0° 15' 8.12" W
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status Complete
Project web site
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
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 Friends of Barnes Common, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Model the effects of altering the two flow control structures with a view to sending more low flows down the natural channel and taking excess flow downs the two culverts when water levels rise. The Beverley Brook natural channel only takes 20% of the flow during normal flow rates, which impacts the geomorphology, silt carrying capacity and habitat value of the brook downstream of the flow control structures.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin London

Subcatchment

River name Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 172172 m <br />0.172 km <br />17,200 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106039022850



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 d/s of Rock’s Lane, Beverley Park, Cuddington Park, Horne Way Weir... further results


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106039022850
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m) 2600 m2.6 km <br />260,000 cm <br />
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Impoundments (not hydropower)
Hydromorphology Channel pattern/planform, Freshwater flow regime
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions Modelling, Monitoring strategy
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information