Case study:Pagham Harbour Bypassing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location | ||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
|Funding sources=Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid, | |Funding sources=Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid, | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations}} | {{Motivations | ||
{{Measures}} | |Specific mitigation=Flood and coastal erosion protection, | ||
}} | |||
{{Measures | |||
|Other technical measure=Beach nourishment, | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} |
Latest revision as of 16:15, 8 November 2018
Location: 50° 45' 57.19" N, 0° 44' 30.04" W
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | http://www.therrc.co.uk/sites/default/files/projects/63_pagham.pdf |
Themes | Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Roger |
Main contact surname | Spencer |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Arun District Council |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.arun.gov.uk/ |
Partner organisations | Environment Agency |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Edit project overview to modify the project summary.
The bypassing of shingle beach material from the Church Norton spit onto Pagham Beach in West Sussex (Photo 1 and Map 1) was carried out in 2009 to quickly address the loss of beach sediment from parts of Pagham Beach onto frontages downdrift from which it could not be recycled.
• Bypassing was seen as an 'adaptive management' intervention that accelerated the expected future natural sediment movement.
• Implementation of bypassing was quicker and cheaper than for beach recharge.
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
Catchment and 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
|