Case study:Rother meander reconnection: Difference between revisions
Mattleeson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(18 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location | ||
|Location=50. | |Location=50.96286182128766, -0.6043680757284164 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=Complete | |Status=Complete | ||
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring | |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring | ||
|Country=England | |Country=England | ||
|Main contact forename= | |Main contact forename=Damon | ||
|Main contact surname= | |Main contact surname=Block | ||
| | |Contact organisation=Environment Agency | ||
|Contact organisation url=www.environment-agency.gov.uk | |||
|Partner organisations=River Restoration Centre, | |||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project picture=Img 6329.jpg | |||
|Picture description=Restored channel shortly after works | |||
|Project summary=Shopham Loop is a section of the river Rother, West Sussex between Coultershaw Bridge and Shopham Bridge. A cut was created in the 18th century to bypass the meander and enable passage of boats upstream. However after navigation ceased, the locks were removed and the cut became the main river course with the meander (Shopham Loop) remaining as a backwater. Land use change to an intensive agricultural regime in turn led to shallower soils and increased siltation and the loop entrance became blocked with deposits preventing any flow from the Rother. | |Project summary=Shopham Loop is a section of the river Rother, West Sussex between Coultershaw Bridge and Shopham Bridge. A cut was created in the 18th century to bypass the meander and enable passage of boats upstream. However after navigation ceased, the locks were removed and the cut became the main river course with the meander (Shopham Loop) remaining as a backwater. Land use change to an intensive agricultural regime in turn led to shallower soils and increased siltation and the loop entrance became blocked with deposits preventing any flow from the Rother. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{Case study subcatchment | ||
|Subcatchment= | |Subcatchment=Western Rother | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
Line 118: | Line 113: | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Structure & condition of riparian zones,Channel pattern/planform,Quantity & dynamics of flow | |Hydromorphological quality elements=Structure & condition of riparian zones,Channel pattern/planform,Quantity & dynamics of flow | ||
|Biological quality elements= | |Biological quality elements=Fish | ||
|Other motivation=Watercourse and floodplain restoration | |Other motivation=Watercourse and floodplain restoration | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures | ||
|Bank and bed modifications measure= | |Bank and bed modifications measure=Re-grading,Planting, Riffle creation, | ||
|Floodplain / River corridor=Floodplain reconnection, Creation of backwaters, Creation of pond, | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Re-instatement of old course, protect old lock from erosion. | |||
|Floodplain / River corridor= | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} | {{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} | ||
Line 178: | Line 160: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{End_table}} | {{End_table}} | ||
{{ | {{Biological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Invertebrates | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Inconclusive | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Fish | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macrophytes | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{End_table}} | {{End_table}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}} | {{Physico-chemical_quality_elements_header}} | ||
Line 186: | Line 195: | ||
{{Monitoring_documents}} | {{Monitoring_documents}} | ||
{{Monitoring_documents_end}} | {{Monitoring_documents_end}} | ||
{{ | {{Image gallery}} | ||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=Shopham Loop1.jpg | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=Img 6286r.JPG | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=Img 6291.jpg | |||
}} | |||
{{Image_gallery_end}} | {{Image_gallery_end}} | ||
{{Additional_Documents}} | {{Additional_Documents}} | ||
Line 198: | Line 216: | ||
|Link=www.therrc.co.uk/case_studies/rother%20at%20shopham%20loop%20final.pdf | |Link=www.therrc.co.uk/case_studies/rother%20at%20shopham%20loop%20final.pdf | ||
|Description=RRC Case Study - Shopham Loop | |Description=RRC Case Study - Shopham Loop | ||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/Final_Versions_(Secure)/1.9_Shopham_Loop.pdf | |||
|Description=RRC Manual of Techniques best practice case study | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/References/RRC_Shopham_Report_FINAL.pdf | |||
|Description=RRC report on the monitoring of the project - analysis & evaluation | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/References/Darby_2003_Geomorph_Basis_Outline_Design_Shopham_Loop.pdf | |||
|Description=Geomorphological Basis of the Outline Design for the Shopham Loop Restoration | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=www.therrc.co.uk/PRAGMO/PRAGMO_2012-01-24.pdf#page=110 | |||
|Description=Shopham case study in RRC's monitoring document 'PRAGMO' (2011) | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Additional_links_and_references_footer}} | {{Additional_links_and_references_footer}} |
Latest revision as of 10:34, 5 June 2017
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Damon |
Main contact surname | Block |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk |
Partner organisations | River Restoration Centre |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Shopham Loop is a section of the river Rother, West Sussex between Coultershaw Bridge and Shopham Bridge. A cut was created in the 18th century to bypass the meander and enable passage of boats upstream. However after navigation ceased, the locks were removed and the cut became the main river course with the meander (Shopham Loop) remaining as a backwater. Land use change to an intensive agricultural regime in turn led to shallower soils and increased siltation and the loop entrance became blocked with deposits preventing any flow from the Rother.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)
Catchment
River basin district | South East |
---|---|
River basin | Arun and Western Streams |
Subcatchment
River name | Western Rother |
---|---|
Area category | 100 - 1000 km² |
Area (km2) | |
Maximum altitude category | 200 - 500 m |
Maximum altitude (m) | 241241 m <br />0.241 km <br />24,100 cm <br /> |
Dominant geology | Calcareous |
Ecoregion | Great Britain |
Dominant land cover | Arable and Horticulture |
Waterbody ID | GB107041012810 |
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Western Rother Fishery Habitat Enhancement
Site
Name | Shopham Loop |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | GB107041012810 |
WFD (national) typology | Low, Medium, Calcareous |
WFD water body name | Western Rother |
Pre-project morphology | Single channel, High width:depth, Embanked |
Reference morphology | Sinuous |
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 | Artificially regulated |
Dominant substrate | Silt, Gravel |
River corridor land use | Urban, Intensive agriculture |
Average bankfull channel width category | 5 - 10 m |
Average bankfull channel width (m) | |
Average bankfull channel depth category | 2 - 5 m |
Average bankfull channel depth (m) | |
Mean discharge category | |
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) | 4.974.97 m³/s <br />4,970 l/s <br /> |
Average channel gradient category | |
Average channel gradient | |
Average unit stream power (W/m2) |
Project background
Reach length directly affected (m) | 1000 m1 km <br />100,000 cm <br /> |
---|---|
Project started | 2000/03/01 |
Works started | |
Works completed | 2004/09/01 |
Project completed | |
Total cost category | |
Total cost (k€) | 580 k€580,000 € <br /> |
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
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | Re-grading, Planting, Riffle creation |
Floodplain / River corridor | Floodplain reconnection, Creation of backwaters, Creation of pond |
Planform / Channel pattern | Re-instatement of old course, protect old lock from erosion. |
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 | |||
Structure & condition of riparian zones | Yes | Yes | Improvement | |||
Channel pattern/planform | Yes | Yes | Improvement |
Biological quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
Invertebrates | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Inconclusive |
Fish | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Improvement |
Macrophytes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Improvement |
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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|---|
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GESO0910BSTC-E-E.pdf | Environment Agency WFD Classification - See P.190. |
http://www.therrc.co.uk/case studies/rother%20at%20shopham%20loop%20final.pdf | RRC Case Study - Shopham Loop |
http://www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/Final Versions (Secure)/1.9 Shopham Loop.pdf | RRC Manual of Techniques best practice case study |
http://www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/References/RRC Shopham Report FINAL.pdf | RRC report on the monitoring of the project - analysis & evaluation |
http://www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/References/Darby 2003 Geomorph Basis Outline Design Shopham Loop.pdf | Geomorphological Basis of the Outline Design for the Shopham Loop Restoration |
http://www.therrc.co.uk/PRAGMO/PRAGMO 2012-01-24.pdf#page=110 | Shopham case study in RRC's monitoring document 'PRAGMO' (2011) |