Case study:Low Stanger Floodplain Reconnection Project: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Case study status |Approval status=Draft }} {{Location |Location=54.6375141, -3.3386376999999356 }} {{Project overview |Project title=Low Stanger Floodplain Reconnection Pro...")
 
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
}}
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Project title=Low Stanger Floodplain Reconnection Project
|Status=Complete
|Status=Complete
|Project web site url=www.therrc.co.uk/sites/default/files/projects/11_lowstanger.pdf
|Themes=Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
|Themes=Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
|Country=England
|Country=England
Line 14: Line 14:
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation=West Cumbria Rivers Trust
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Contact organisation url=westcumbriariverstrust.org/
|Partner organisations=Natural England, Environment Agency,
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=11 Low Stanger Floodplain.png
|Project summary=There have been significant flooding issues in the town of Cockermouth in recent years. A new flood defence scheme was constructed in 2014, which was overtopped by Storm Desmond in December 2015. There is no single solution and it will need multiple and varied solutions working with landowners to help flatten the flood peak in order to reduce future flood risk. At Low Stanger Farm (see Map 1), the existing flood embankment was breached along 4 sections to increase flood storage when the River Cocker is out of channel
|Project title=Low Stanger Floodplain Reconnection Project
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery}}

Revision as of 14:36, 1 November 2018

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: 54° 38' 15.05" N, 3° 20' 19.10" 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 http://www.therrc.co.uk/sites/default/files/projects/11_lowstanger.pdf
Themes Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
Country England
Main contact forename Ian
Main contact surname Creighton
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation West Cumbria Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site http://westcumbriariverstrust.org/
Partner organisations Natural England, Environment Agency
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


There have been significant flooding issues in the town of Cockermouth in recent years. A new flood defence scheme was constructed in 2014, which was overtopped by Storm Desmond in December 2015. There is no single solution and it will need multiple and varied solutions working with landowners to help flatten the flood peak in order to reduce future flood risk. At Low Stanger Farm (see Map 1), the existing flood embankment was breached along 4 sections to increase flood storage when the River Cocker is out of channel

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



Site

Name
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
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)
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
Hydromorphology
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
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