Case study:Saving Chiswick Eyot: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
|Approval status=Approved
}}
{{Location
|Location=51.4875, -0.2458329999999478
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Status=In progress
|Project web site url=www.savingchiswickeyot.com
|Project web site url=www.savingchiswickeyot.com
|Themes=Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Social benefits, Water quality, Urban
|Themes=Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Estuary, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Social benefits, Urban, Water quality
|Country=England
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Martin
|Main contact forename=Martin
Line 14: Line 8:
|Main contact id=Mobilitydream
|Main contact id=Mobilitydream
|Contact organisation=Natural History Museum
|Contact organisation=Natural History Museum
|Contact organisation url=www.nhm.ac.uk
|Contact organisation url=www.royalholloway.ac.uk/
|Partner organisations=Royal Holloway University of London, MoLA, Fullers Brewery, University of Leicester, Thames21, Port of London Authority, DHI, Thames Tideway, The British Geological Survey
|Partner organisations=DHI, Fullers Brewery, Imperial College London., MOLA, Port of London Authority, Royal Holloway University of London, University of Leicester, Thames21, Thames Tideway, The British Geological Survey
|Name of parent multi-site project=Integrated assessment of accelerating change in aquatic ecosystems with application to a non-native species in the Thames at Chiswick Eyot
|Name of parent multi-site project=Integrated assessment of accelerating change in aquatic ecosystems with application to a non-native species in the Thames at Chiswick Eyot
|Multi-site=Yes
|Multi-site=Yes
|Project picture=Ground extraxction with dense contours.jpg
|Project picture=Elevation colour map.JPG
|Picture description=Eyot erosion
|Picture description=Surface of the Eyot showing features and elevation
|Project summary=Project team
|Project summary=Project team


Dr. Dave Morritt, Royal Holloway University of London.
* Martin Richardson, PhD student RHUL & NHM.
Dr. Paul Clark, Natural History Museum, London.
* Therese Tobin, Old Chiswick Protection Society, OCPS.
Martin Richardson, PhD student RHUL & NHM.
* Thames21.
Therese Tobin, Old Chiswick Preservation Society, OCPS
* Dr. Chris Vane, British Geological Survey.
Thames21
* Dr. Jamie Standing, Imperial College, University of London.
* Heena Sheth, MSc. student Imperial College University of London.


Site Designations
Site Designations
Line 34: Line 29:
Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, Greater London Authority (GLA),1990;
Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, Greater London Authority (GLA),1990;
Local Nature Reserve, London Borough of Hounslow, 1993;
Local Nature Reserve, London Borough of Hounslow, 1993;
London Basin Natural Area, English nature, 1997;
London Basin Natural Area, 1997;
Strategic Nature Conservation Site, London Borough of Hounslow,1999;
Strategic Nature Conservation Site, London Borough of Hounslow,1999;


Line 44: Line 39:
1999 Erosion assessment using flags, BSc. Dissertation, University of Westminster;
1999 Erosion assessment using flags, BSc. Dissertation, University of Westminster;
1999 MSc. Thesis: Burrow distribution of the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) at Syon park flood meadow (SSSI), Zucco, UCL;
1999 MSc. Thesis: Burrow distribution of the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) at Syon park flood meadow (SSSI), Zucco, UCL;
Chiswick Eyot Local Nature Reserve report, Carillion integrated Services;
2000 Chiswick Eyot, River Thames, London Borough of Hounslow. A foreshore earthwork survey, Museum of London Archaeology;
2000 Chiswick Eyot, River Thames, London Borough of Hounslow. A foreshore earthwork survey, Museum of London Archaeology;
2000 Chiswick Eyot Management plan 2001-2005, London Borough of Hounslow;
2000 Chiswick Eyot Management plan 2001-2005, London Borough of Hounslow;
2002 Survey of Chiswick Eyot,Thames explorer trust;
2002 Survey of Chiswick Eyot,Thames explorer trust;
2011 Chiswick Eyot habitat management Plan,Thames21;
2011 Chiswick Eyot Habitat Management Plan,Thames21;
2013 Chiswick Eyot Local Nature Reserve report, Ecology Department, Carillion integrated Services


Description
Description


Island habitat in the Thames is rare and several of them, as with the lost rivers of the Thames catchment, have disappeared over time. Chiswick Eyot is a small, historically important island close by Chiswick Mall. An economically important willow holt of several hundred salix spp. trees has been maintained since the middle ages however, husbandry has lapsed at times with the island showing periods of low growth when the area was heavily industrialised with gravel pits at Barnes and the Thoneycroft shipyard at Chiswick.
Island habitat in the Thames is rare and several, as with the lost rivers of the Thames catchment, have been degraded over time, all are now threatened by rising sea-levels. Indeed at one point there may have been more, small eyots which have now disappeared. Chiswick Eyot is a historically important island close by Chiswick Mall. What was, before the introduction of plastics, an economically important willow holt of several hundred trees has been maintained since the middle ages. Husbandry has lapsed at times with the island showing periods of low growth particularly when the area became industrialised with heavy barge traffic, gravel pits at Barnes and the Thonycroft shipyard at Chiswick for example. Later, a survey by Dr Oliver Natelson conducted in 2002 found 554 living and 319 dead trees. However, the OCPS has managed and funded annual pollarding of the willows since the 1950's. A complete biological survey funded by Defra, Thames Water and the OCPS, was carried out by Brian Wurzell and others for the Thames Explorer Trust in 2001-2002 as a follow-up to a previous survey by the London Ecology Unit in 1990.


Erosion first became a concern in the mid-1940's when it was realised that the surface area had declined by nearly 40%. Both ends of the island had receded and overall length decreased by nearly '100 yds.' Restoration work has continued since that time and several ecological studies have been conducted by the Environment Agency, Hounslow Council, and Thames Explorer Trust.  
Erosion first became a concern in the mid-1940's when it was realised that the surface area had declined by nearly 40%. Both ends of the island had receded and overall length decreased by nearly '100 yds.' Restoration work has continued since that time and several ecological studies have been conducted by the Environment Agency, Hounslow Council, and the Thames Explorer Trust. We are working with an ‘ecosystem’ of partners to address the problem of maintaining the island employing best practice techniques. Restoration work is being conducted by Thames21 and a variety of survey techniques are being used to understand processes affecting the island. An initial 3D scan of almost the entire eyot was conducted in 2016 in association with the University of Leicester and Leica Geosystems. The scan was repeated in 2017. Analysis of the data will provide greater understanding of the processes at work and enable visualisation of any changes occurring as well as determination of the rate of erosion. In addition, several hundred digital photographs were taken of areas of particular interest over a 3-year period to provide a visual record, these will also be used to develop point clouds as supplementary data.
We are working with an ‘ecosystem’ of partners to address the problem of maintaining the island employing best practice techniques. An initial 3D scan of almost the entire island was conducted in 2016 in association with the University of Leicester and Leica Geosystems. The scan was repeated in 2017. Analysis of the data will provide greater understanding of the processes at work and enable visualisation of any changes occurring as well as determination of rate of erosion. In addition, several hundred digital photographs were taken of areas of particular interest over a 3-year period to provide a visual record, these will also be used to develop point clouds as supplementary data.


Bi-monthly conventional topographic surveys of part of one bank were undertaken by MoLA in 1999 and 2000 allowing for decadal scale assessment of the erosion rate. High resolution aerial photographs and digitized historical Ordnance Survey maps are available dating back to at least the 1930s and these will be used to assess changes in surface area and any migration of the banks generally. We have engaged with the local community and formed partnerships with other organisations including Thames 21, the River Restoration Centre, Leica Geosystems, DHI, MoLA, and Royal Holloway University of London.
Bi-monthly conventional topographic surveys of part of one bank were undertaken by MoLA in 1999 and 2000 allowing for decadal scale assessment of the erosion. High resolution aerial photographs and digitized historical Ordnance Survey maps are available dating back to at least the 1930s and these will be used to assess changes in surface area and any migration of the banks generally. We have engaged with the local community and formed partnerships with other commercial, charitable, academic and volunteer organisations including Thames21, the River Restoration Centre, Leica Geosystems, DHI, MoLA, and Royal Holloway University of London.
|Monitoring surveys and results=Very accurate baseline surveys have been completed.Preliminary assessment indicates a current rate of retreat of the banks at around 1m per decade, or approximately 10cm annually.A large amount of material has accumulated behind the facines which are being well maintained. Additional work, installation of supporting posts and fascines, has commenced on the east side of the island.
|Monitoring surveys and results=Very accurate baseline surveys have been completed. Preliminary assessment indicates a current rate of retreat of the banks at around 1m per decade, or approximately 10cm annually. A large amount of material has accumulated behind the spiling and facines which are being well maintained. Additional work, installation of supporting posts and fascines, has commenced on the east side of the island.
|Lessons learn=Restoration work using traditional willow withes has resulted in improved overall appearance and accretion to some areas of the bank. Vegetation is not growing in the silt perhaps because of a lack of oxygen. Seepage from the bank toe area is keeping the silt mobile in some areas. The current approach employed by Thames21 of incremental maintenance appears to be successful and demonstrates good cost vs. benefit ratio, especially since partners have started to make contributions towards costs. Withies planted on the flat surface of the island by the Old Chiswick Preservation Society are growing well and the willow holt, which is pollared annually, appears to be in good condition. The withies produced by the pollarding are then bundled by the OCPS and volunteers and used to provide structure behind the fascines.
|Lessons learn=Restoration work using traditional willow withies has resulted in improved overall appearance and accretion to some areas of the bank. Vegetation is not growing in the silt perhaps because of a lack of oxygen. Seepage from the bank toe area is keeping the silt mobile in some areas. The current approach employed by Thames21 of incremental maintenance appears to be successful and demonstrates good cost vs. benefit, especially since partners have started to make contributions towards costs. Withies planted on the flat surface of the island by the Old Chiswick Protection Society are growing well and the willow holt, which is pollarded annually, appears to be in good condition. The withies produced by the pollarding are bundled by the OCPS and volunteers and used to provide structure behind the spiling and fascines.


It might be useful at this point to consider additional techniques such as rolls of rocks (rocks bundled into mesh 'socks') at the areas of the bank toe with seepage. Thames21 has also mentioned using different species of aquatic plants.
It might be useful at this point to consider additional techniques such as rolls of rocks (rocks bundled into mesh 'socks') at the areas of the bank toe with seepage. Thames21 has also mentioned using different species of aquatic plants.
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study status
{{Case study image
|Approval status=Approved
|File name=Slumpingbank.jpg
|Caption=Tree and slumping bank
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Location
|File name=Mitten crab burrows.jpeg
|Location=51.4875, -0.2458329999999478
|Caption=Detail holes in the banks of Chiswick Eyot.
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Scanning from gardens along the Chiswick Mall.JPG
|File name=Old Chiswick Conservation Area.JPG
|Caption=Using the Leica P40 scanner
|Caption=Old Chiswick Conservation Area. London borough of Hounslow
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Defences.jpg
|File name=Thames21 Chiswick Eyot days.png
|Caption=Accretion behind restoration structures on the north bank of the Eyot
|Caption=Thames21 volunteer poster
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Mittencrabburrows.JPG
|File name=EA flood risk level.JPG
|Caption=Complex erosion pattern
|Caption=Environment Agency flood risk level around the island
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Bank Erosion.jpg
|File name=Surface flatness with breaklines labelled.jpg
|Caption=Comparison 2002 to 2010 bottom of bank
|Caption=Flatness of the island surface or plateau
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Chiswick EastBurrows snapshot2.jpg
|File name=Volume calculation using 5m layer.jpg
|Caption=Detail from a laser scan 2016
|Caption=Volume calculation using 5m contour
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Screen1.jpg
|Caption=LiDAR data
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Photos against surface.JPG
|Caption=Photogrammetry of part of the bank 2016
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=West bank point cloud pic.JPG
|File name=Bathymetry and scans.JPG
|Caption=Photogrammetry point cloud of restored bank 2016
|Caption=Bathymetry and scans combined
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=01022017 east bank and flat.JPG
|File name=3D model of west bank.jpg
|Caption=Photogrammetry model of the East bank from 2017
|Caption=3-dimensional model of the west bank
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=East bank 01022017.JPG
|File name=Records of burrowing species in the Thames tideway.jpg
|Caption=More detail of the East bank. Photogrammetry 2017
|Caption=Historical records of burrowing animal species in the Thames tideway
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Bathymmetry and scans2.JPG
|File name=East bank with new posts.JPG
|Caption=Bathymetry and point clouds combined
|Caption=New work in 2018 to the east side
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Bank with mola.jpg
|File name=Animal photo capture.JPG
|Caption=Mola 1999 survey points against 2016 surface
|Caption=Photo capture using remote cameras
}}
}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image
|File name=Surface flatness with breaklines labelled.jpg
|File name=Soil sampling
|Caption=Flatness of the island surface or plateau
|Caption=Jamie Standing and Dave Morritt collecting cores
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Volume calculation using 5m layer.jpg
|Caption=Volume calculation using 5m contour
}}
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Image gallery end}}
Line 135: Line 116:
}}
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=Chiswick Eyot
|WFD water body code=GB530603911402,
|WFD water body code=GB530603911402,
|WFD (national) typology=Intertidal,
|WFD (national) typology=Intertidal,
|WFD water body name=Thames Middle
|WFD water body name=Thames Middle
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Pre-project morphology=Long, narrow island
|Protected species present=No
|Desired post project morphology=Maintained
|Heavily modified water body=Yes
|Site designation=UK - Local Nature Reserve
|Local site designation=Old Chiswick Conservation Area, Metropolitan Green Belt, Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature, London Basin Natural Area, Strategic Nature Conservation Site
|Protected species present=Yes
|Invasive species present=Yes
|Invasive species present=Yes
|Species=Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis),
|Species=Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera ), Smelt, Chinese mitten crab, European eel (Anguilla anguilla), Veronica anagallis aquatica, Garden angelica, Marsh Ragwort, Phragmites australis, buttercup (Ranunculus sp.),
|Dominant substrate=River mud
|River corridor land use=Urban,
|River corridor land use=Urban,
}}
}}
Line 147: Line 134:
|Reach length directly affected=290
|Reach length directly affected=290
|Project started=2014/12/23
|Project started=2014/12/23
|Works started=2015/06/01
|Total cost category=50 - 100 k€
|Total cost category=50 - 100 k€
|Funding sources=Commercial partners. Local charities.
|Benefit to cost ratio=High
|Funding sources=Commercial partners, Local charities
|Investigation and design cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Investigation and design cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
Line 159: Line 146:
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Richardson
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Richardson
|Works1 and supervision cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Works1 and supervision cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Thames21
|Works and supervision Other contact forename=Diana
|Works and supervision Other contact forename=Viv
|Works and supervision Other contact surname=Catovan
|Works and supervision Other contact surname=Richardson
|Post-project1 management and maintenance cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Post-project1 management and maintenance cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
Line 168: Line 155:
|Monitoring1 cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Monitoring1 cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Monitoring Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Monitoring Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Monitoring Other contact forename=Diana
|Monitoring Other contact forename=Martin
|Monitoring Other contact surname=Catovon
|Monitoring Other contact surname=Richardson
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Invasive species,
|Specific mitigation=Invasive species,
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Structure & condition of intertidal zone,
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Structure & condition of intertidal zone,
|Biological quality elements=Historical willow holt
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Restrict sediment mobilization
|Other motivation=Maintenance of local nature reserve
}}
}}
{{Measures
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank stabilisation, Restoration of natural vegetation, Removal of invasive plants, Removal of invasive species,
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank stabilisation, Restoration of natural vegetation, Removal of invasive plants, Removal of invasive species, Bank improvement,
|Planform / Channel pattern=Bank restoration,
|Management interventions=Reducing bank side collapse (source of sediment),
|Management interventions=Reducing bank side collapse (source of sediment),
|Social measures=Awareness raising, Community involvement, Citizen participation in the restoration project, the site is used by several schools and Thames Explorer Trust
|Social measures=Awareness raising, Community involvement, Citizen participation in the restoration project, the site is used by several schools and Thames Explorer Trust

Latest revision as of 13:46, 16 September 2024


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status In progress
Project web site http://www.savingchiswickeyot.com
Themes Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Estuary, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Social benefits, Urban, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Martin
Main contact surname Richardson
Main contact user ID User:Mobilitydream
Contact organisation Natural History Museum
Contact organisation web site http://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/
Partner organisations DHI, Fullers Brewery, Imperial College London., MOLA, Port of London Authority, Royal Holloway University of London, University of Leicester, Thames21, Thames Tideway, The British Geological Survey
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
Surface of the Eyot showing features and elevation

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Project team

  • Martin Richardson, PhD student RHUL & NHM.
  • Therese Tobin, Old Chiswick Protection Society, OCPS.
  • Thames21.
  • Dr. Chris Vane, British Geological Survey.
  • Dr. Jamie Standing, Imperial College, University of London.
  • Heena Sheth, MSc. student Imperial College University of London.

Site Designations

Old Chiswick Conservation Area, London Borough of Hounslow, 1969; Metropolitan Green Belt; Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, Greater London Authority (GLA),1990; Local Nature Reserve, London Borough of Hounslow, 1993; London Basin Natural Area, 1997; Strategic Nature Conservation Site, London Borough of Hounslow,1999;

Selection of Reports

1990 Chiswick Eyot, The London Ecology Unit; 1996 The Chinese mitten crab in the Thames Catchment, Environment Agency, Thomas and Yeomans; 1998 Effects of burrowing Chinese mitten Crabs (Eriocheir sinensis) on the Thames Tideway Dutton & Conroy, Environment Agency; 1999 Erosion assessment using flags, BSc. Dissertation, University of Westminster; 1999 MSc. Thesis: Burrow distribution of the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) at Syon park flood meadow (SSSI), Zucco, UCL; 2000 Chiswick Eyot, River Thames, London Borough of Hounslow. A foreshore earthwork survey, Museum of London Archaeology; 2000 Chiswick Eyot Management plan 2001-2005, London Borough of Hounslow; 2002 Survey of Chiswick Eyot,Thames explorer trust; 2011 Chiswick Eyot Habitat Management Plan,Thames21; 2013 Chiswick Eyot Local Nature Reserve report, Ecology Department, Carillion integrated Services

Description

Island habitat in the Thames is rare and several, as with the lost rivers of the Thames catchment, have been degraded over time, all are now threatened by rising sea-levels. Indeed at one point there may have been more, small eyots which have now disappeared. Chiswick Eyot is a historically important island close by Chiswick Mall. What was, before the introduction of plastics, an economically important willow holt of several hundred trees has been maintained since the middle ages. Husbandry has lapsed at times with the island showing periods of low growth particularly when the area became industrialised with heavy barge traffic, gravel pits at Barnes and the Thonycroft shipyard at Chiswick for example. Later, a survey by Dr Oliver Natelson conducted in 2002 found 554 living and 319 dead trees. However, the OCPS has managed and funded annual pollarding of the willows since the 1950's. A complete biological survey funded by Defra, Thames Water and the OCPS, was carried out by Brian Wurzell and others for the Thames Explorer Trust in 2001-2002 as a follow-up to a previous survey by the London Ecology Unit in 1990.

Erosion first became a concern in the mid-1940's when it was realised that the surface area had declined by nearly 40%. Both ends of the island had receded and overall length decreased by nearly '100 yds.' Restoration work has continued since that time and several ecological studies have been conducted by the Environment Agency, Hounslow Council, and the Thames Explorer Trust. We are working with an ‘ecosystem’ of partners to address the problem of maintaining the island employing best practice techniques. Restoration work is being conducted by Thames21 and a variety of survey techniques are being used to understand processes affecting the island. An initial 3D scan of almost the entire eyot was conducted in 2016 in association with the University of Leicester and Leica Geosystems. The scan was repeated in 2017. Analysis of the data will provide greater understanding of the processes at work and enable visualisation of any changes occurring as well as determination of the rate of erosion. In addition, several hundred digital photographs were taken of areas of particular interest over a 3-year period to provide a visual record, these will also be used to develop point clouds as supplementary data.

Bi-monthly conventional topographic surveys of part of one bank were undertaken by MoLA in 1999 and 2000 allowing for decadal scale assessment of the erosion. High resolution aerial photographs and digitized historical Ordnance Survey maps are available dating back to at least the 1930s and these will be used to assess changes in surface area and any migration of the banks generally. We have engaged with the local community and formed partnerships with other commercial, charitable, academic and volunteer organisations including Thames21, the River Restoration Centre, Leica Geosystems, DHI, MoLA, and Royal Holloway University of London.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Very accurate baseline surveys have been completed. Preliminary assessment indicates a current rate of retreat of the banks at around 1m per decade, or approximately 10cm annually. A large amount of material has accumulated behind the spiling and facines which are being well maintained. Additional work, installation of supporting posts and fascines, has commenced on the east side of the island.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Restoration work using traditional willow withies has resulted in improved overall appearance and accretion to some areas of the bank. Vegetation is not growing in the silt perhaps because of a lack of oxygen. Seepage from the bank toe area is keeping the silt mobile in some areas. The current approach employed by Thames21 of incremental maintenance appears to be successful and demonstrates good cost vs. benefit, especially since partners have started to make contributions towards costs. Withies planted on the flat surface of the island by the Old Chiswick Protection Society are growing well and the willow holt, which is pollarded annually, appears to be in good condition. The withies produced by the pollarding are bundled by the OCPS and volunteers and used to provide structure behind the spiling and fascines.

It might be useful at this point to consider additional techniques such as rolls of rocks (rocks bundled into mesh 'socks') at the areas of the bank toe with seepage. Thames21 has also mentioned using different species of aquatic plants.

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 29' 15.00" N, 0° 14' 45.00" W
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Image gallery


Old Chiswick Conservation Area. London borough of Hounslow
Thames21 volunteer poster
Environment Agency flood risk level around the island
Flatness of the island surface or plateau
Volume calculation using 5m contour
Bathymetry and scans combined
3-dimensional model of the west bank
Historical records of burrowing animal species in the Thames tideway
New work in 2018 to the east side
Photo capture using remote cameras
File:Soil sampling
Jamie Standing and Dave Morritt collecting cores
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin London

Subcatchment

River name Thames Middle
Area category Less than 10 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Urban
Waterbody ID GB530603911402



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Barking Creek near A13, Barking Creekmouth, Chambers Wharf, Cuckolds Haven Nature Area, Greenwich Peninsula, Lower River Roding Regeneration Project, Mill Pool, Wandsworth Riverside Quarter


Site

Name Chiswick Eyot
WFD water body codes GB530603911402
WFD (national) typology Intertidal
WFD water body name Thames Middle
Pre-project morphology Long, narrow island
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology Maintained
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation UK - Local Nature Reserve
Local/regional site designations Old Chiswick Conservation Area, Metropolitan Green Belt, Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature, London Basin Natural Area, Strategic Nature Conservation Site
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present Yes
Species of interest Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera ), Smelt, Chinese mitten crab, European eel (Anguilla anguilla), Veronica anagallis aquatica, Garden angelica, Marsh Ragwort, Phragmites australis, buttercup (Ranunculus sp.)
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate River mud
River corridor land use Urban
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) 290290 m <br />0.29 km <br />29,000 cm <br />
Project started 2014/12/23
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category 50 - 100 k€
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio High"High" is not a number.
Funding sources Commercial partners, Local charities

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design 1 - 10 k€ Natural History Museum Paul Clark
Stakeholder engagement and communication Less than 1 k€ Royal Holloway University of London Martin Richardson
Works and works supervision 100 - 500 k€ Thames21 Viv Richardson
Post-project management and maintenance 1 - 10 k€ Natural History Museum Paul Clark
Monitoring 1 - 10 k€ Natural History Museum Martin Richardson



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Invasive species
Hydromorphology Structure & condition of intertidal zone
Biology Historical willow holt
Physico-chemical Restrict sediment mobilization
Other reasons for the project Maintenance of local nature reserve


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Bank stabilisation, Restoration of natural vegetation, Removal of invasive plants, Removal of invasive species, Bank improvement
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions Reducing bank side collapse (source of sediment)
Social measures (incl. engagement) Awareness raising, Community involvement, Citizen participation in the restoration project, the site is used by several schools and Thames Explorer Trust
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