Case study:Sunrise, River Trent, Staffordshire University: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
{{Case study status}}
|Approval status=Draft
}}
{{Location}}
{{Location}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview}}
|Status=Complete
{{Image gallery}}
|Project web site url=https://www.erdf-sunrise.co.uk/
{{Case study image
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban
|File name=University DJI 0231.JPG
|Country=England
|Caption=Completed scheme 2020
|Main contact forename=Nick
|Main contact surname=Mott
|Main contact id=Nick Mott
|Contact organisation=Staffordshire Wildlife Trust
|Contact organisation url=https://www.staffs-wildlife.org.uk/
|Partner organisations=Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, Environment Agency, Staffordshire University, Wild Trout Trust, ERDF, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Dynamic Rivers, University of Salford
|Name of parent multi-site project=Sunrise, Staffs Trent Valley
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=University DJI 0212.JPG
|Picture description=Riparian zone restoration, Sept 2020
|Project summary=Part of the ERDF-funded Sunrise Project. 500 metres of heavily-engineered, trapezoidal channel was restored to a multiple channel connected to a wider area of floodplain with backwaters, exposed riverine sediments, ponds and reedswamp.
|Monitoring surveys and results=Baseline geomorphology (drone DTM and depths), fish and invertebrate sampling carried out in 2020.
Repeat surveys ongoing. Results include first breeding records for Brown Trout in the urban River Trent in December 2020, 2021 and 2022.
|Lessons learn=The University and the project partners are planning a second phase of work along an upstream reach to connect the University-owned area to Trent Mill.
|Project title=Sunrise, River Trent, Staffordshire University
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle button}}

Revision as of 20:53, 2 April 2023

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

5.00
(one vote)


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


Location: none specified



Project overview

Edit project overview
Status
Project web site
Themes
Country
Main contact forename
Main contact surname
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
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

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

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


Completed scheme 2020
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


Retrieved from "https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Sunrise,_River_Trent,_Staffordshire_University&oldid=48643"