Case study:River Roding at Ray Lodge Park: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case_study_status
{{Case study status
|Approval status=
|Approval status=Approved
   
 
 
   
      Draft
}}
}}
{{Location
{{Location
Line 14: Line 9:
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits
|Country=England
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Nick
|Main contact forename=John
|Main contact surname=Elbourne
|Main contact surname=Bryden
|Main contact id=NickRRC
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation=River Restoration Centre
|Contact organisation url=www.environment-agency.gov.uk
|Contact organisation url=www.therrc.co.uk
|Partner organisations=Environment Agency,
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=P9020160.JPG
|Picture description=River Roding after the restoration project
|Project summary=After works on a nearby motorway (the M11) in the 1970's ans 1980's, the River Roding was artificially diverted and straightened, resulting in poor quality wildlife habitat. The restoration project looked to address this by creating new habitats for a range of species including water voles, dragonflies and numerous fish species, without a reduction in flood protection. This was achieved through bank re-profiling, backwater creation and planting of the rivers banks.
|Project summary=After works on a nearby motorway (the M11) in the 1970's ans 1980's, the River Roding was artificially diverted and straightened, resulting in poor quality wildlife habitat. The restoration project looked to address this by creating new habitats for a range of species including water voles, dragonflies and numerous fish species, without a reduction in flood protection. This was achieved through bank re-profiling, backwater creation and planting of the rivers banks.
}}
}}
{{Case_study_subcatchment
{{Image gallery}}
|Subcatchment=
{{Case study image
   
|File name=2007 01 22 (22).JPG
   
|Caption=River Roding prior to the project
      Roding
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=2007 11 14 (15).JPG
|Caption=The created backwater
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=P9020159.JPG
|Caption=The backwater after the establishment of vegetation, September 2009
}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
 
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Roding (Cripsey Brook to Loxford Water)
}}
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=
|Name=Ray Lodge Park
   
|WFD water body code=GB106037028180
   
|WFD (national) typology=Intertidal,
      Ray Lodge Park
|WFD water body name=Roding (Cripsey Brook to Loxford Water)
|WFD water body code=
|Pre-project morphology=Single channel,Impounded,High width:depth
     
|Reference morphology=Single channel, Sinuous, Pool-riffle,
|WFD (national) typology=
|Heavily modified water body=Yes
     
|Protected species present=No
|WFD water body name=
|Invasive species present=No
     
|Dominant hydrology=Quick run-off
|Pre-project morphology=
|Dominant substrate=Bedrock
      Single channel,Impounded,High width:depth
|River corridor land use=Urban
|Reference morphology=
|Average bankfull channel width category=5 - 10 m
      Single channel,Sinuous,Pool-riffle
|Average bankfull channel depth category=0.5 - 2 m
|Heavily modified water body=
|Mn discharge=1.85
      true
|Local site designation=
     
|Site designation=
     
|Protected species present=
     
|Invasive species present=
     
|Species=
     
|Dominant hydrology=
      Quick run-off
|Dominant substrate=
      Bedrock
|River corridor land use=
      Urban
|Average bankfull channel width category=
      5 - 10 m
|Avrg bankfull channel width=
     
|Average bankfull channel depth category=
      0.5 - 2 m
|Avrg1 bankfull channel depth=
     
|Mean discharge category=
     
|Mn discharge=
      1.85
|Average channel gradient category=
     
|Avrg channel gradient=
     
}}
}}
{{Project_background
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=
|Reach length directly affected=150 m
   
|Project started=2007/08/01
   
|Works started=2007/10/01
      150 m
|Works completed=2008/01/01
|Project started=
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
      2007/08/01
|Total1 cost=175 k€
|Works started=
|Funding sources=London Borough of Redbridge, Environment Agency
      2007/10/01
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Environment Agency
|Works completed=
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=Environment Agency
      2008/01/01
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Environment Agency
|Project completed=
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=Environment Agency
     
|Monitoring Lead organisation=Environment Agency
|Total cost category=
      100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=
      140 k€
|Funding sources=
      London Borough of Redbridge,Environment Agency
|Investigation and design cost category=
     
|Invst and design cost=
     
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Investigation and design Other contact forename=
     
|Investigation and design Other contact surname=
     
|Stakeholder1 engagement cost category=
     
|stk engagement cost=
     
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=
     
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=
     
|Works1 and supervision cost category=
     
|Wrk and supervision cost=
     
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Works and supervision Other contact forename=
     
|Works and supervision Other contact surname=
     
|Post-project1 management and maintenance cost category=
     
|Post-project2 management and maintenance cost=
     
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact forename=
     
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact surname=
     
|Monitoring1 cost category=
     
|Monitoring2 cost=
     
|Monitoring Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Monitoring Other contact forename=
     
|Monitoring Other contact surname=
     
|Supplementary funding information=
     
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Motivations
Line 166: Line 84:
}}
}}
{{Measures
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Removal of revetments,Depth variation,Planting,Re-profiling
   
|Floodplain / River corridor=Removal of embankments
   
|Planform / Channel pattern=Creation of backwater,Creation of pond, Adding sinuosity,
      Removal of revetments,Depth variations,Planting,Re-profiling
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=Participation in maintenance,Consultation,Participation in design
|Floodplain / River corridor=
      Removal of embankments
|Planform / Channel pattern=
      Creation of backwater,Creation of pond,Sinuosity
|Other technical measure=
     
|Management interventions=
     
|Social measures=
     
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=
      Participation in maintenance,Consultation,Participation in design
}}
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
Line 192: Line 98:
{{Other_response_table_row
{{Other_response_table_row
|Element=
|Element=
   
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
       Public Accessibility
       Public Accessibility
|Monitored before=
|Monitored before=
Line 218: Line 116:
{{Monitoring_documents}}
{{Monitoring_documents}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Monitoring_documents_end}}
{{Image gallery}}
 
{{Case study image
|File name=2007 01 22 (22).JPG
|Caption=River Roding during the project
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=2007 11 14 (15).JPG
|Caption=The created backwater
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=P9020159.JPG
|Caption=The backwater after the establishment of vegetation, September 2009
}}
{{Image_gallery_end}}
{{Additional_Documents}}
{{Additional_Documents}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_Documents_end}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_header}}
{{Additional links and references header}}
{{Additional links and references
|Link=www.therrc.co.uk/case_studies/roding%20at%20redbridge.pdf
|Description=River Restoration Centre Case Study
}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}}
{{Supplementary_Information
{{Supplementary_Information
|Information=
|Information=
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     
}}
}}
{{Case_study_upload}}
{{Case_study_upload}}
{{Toggle content end}}

Latest revision as of 11:46, 25 November 2020

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 36' 59.43" N, 0° 3' 11.60" E
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 Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename John
Main contact surname Bryden
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
River Roding after the restoration project

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


After works on a nearby motorway (the M11) in the 1970's ans 1980's, the River Roding was artificially diverted and straightened, resulting in poor quality wildlife habitat. The restoration project looked to address this by creating new habitats for a range of species including water voles, dragonflies and numerous fish species, without a reduction in flood protection. This was achieved through bank re-profiling, backwater creation and planting of the rivers banks.

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


River Roding prior to the project
The created backwater
The backwater after the establishment of vegetation, September 2009
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne

Subcatchment

River name Roding (Cripsey Brook to Loxford Water)
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 124124 m <br />0.124 km <br />12,400 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Arable and Horticulture
Waterbody ID GB106037028180



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Chigwell Brook, Fresh Wharf, Land opposite Wanstead Park, Valentines Park, Weir upstream of Redbridge roundabout


Site

Name Ray Lodge Park
WFD water body codes GB106037028180
WFD (national) typology Intertidal
WFD water body name Roding (Cripsey Brook to Loxford Water)
Pre-project morphology Single channel, Impounded, High width:depth
Reference morphology Single channel, Sinuous, Pool-riffle
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology Quick run-off
Dominant substrate Bedrock
River corridor land use Urban
Average bankfull channel width category 5 - 10 m
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) 1.851.85 m³/s <br />1,850 l/s <br />
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m) 150 m0.15 km <br />15,000 cm <br />
Project started 2007/08/01
Works started 2007/10/01
Works completed 2008/01/01
Project completed
Total cost category 100 - 500 k€
Total cost (k€) 175 k€175,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources London Borough of Redbridge, Environment Agency

Cost for project phases

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



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology Channel pattern/planform, Quantity & dynamics of flow
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project Landscape enhancement, Inter-tidal enhancement, Community demand


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Removal of revetments, Depth variation, Planting, Re-profiling
Floodplain / River corridor Removal of embankments
Planform / Channel pattern Creation of backwater, Creation of pond, Adding sinuosity
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other Participation in maintenance, Consultation, Participation in design


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
Public Accessibility Yes Yes Improvement


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description
http://www.therrc.co.uk/case studies/roding%20at%20redbridge.pdf River Restoration Centre Case Study

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information