Case study:Malden Golf Course: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
}}
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Status=Complete
|Status=Planned
|Themes=Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
|Country=England
|Country=England
|Main contact forename=Joanna
|Main contact forename=Joanna
|Main contact surname=Heisse
|Main contact surname=Heisse
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation url=www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=Aimed to improve the overall habitat of this section of river with a particular focus on habitat creation which would support spawning opportunities as well as juvenile and adult habitat for native Brown Trout. This was recognised as a section in very poor condition. The specific objectives were as follows:<br>1. To improve in-stream habitat by cleaning areas of loose gravels and increasingly flow rates to an optimal level to support fish, especially brown native trout, and creating habitat to support both juvenile and adult fish.<br>2. Increase natural flows which, even during low flows during the summer, can provide a healthy and diverse habitat. 3. Clear heavily shaded trees and plant marginal aquatic plants to support invertebrates and other aquatic life (water voles).<br>4. Improve the appearance of the river by creating a natural sinuous flow through this stretch of river, narrowing the channel using large woody debris and woody faggots to create in-channel structures.<br>5. Increase fishing opportunities within the river (and overall condition of the section). Over abstraction has led to the degradation of the Darent, where characteristic chalk-river chacateristics: clear water, macrophytes, low bans and natural flows have been lost. It has experienced heavy modification and provided power for milling and historic agricultural irrigation. The river also flows into a number of large on-line lakes that fragment habitat and put additional pressure on water quality and quantity.
|Project summary=Removal of toe boards to improve habitat and reduce flood risk. Beverley Brook and Coombe Brook flow through the golf course. Beverley Brook has toe boarding which the river is eroding behind. The river is almost devoid of inchannel features through the golf course.
}}
}}
{{Image_gallery}}
{{Image_gallery}}
Line 25: Line 27:
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_button}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Toggle_content_start}}
{{Case_study_subcatchment
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=
|Subcatchment=Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
   
   
   
   
   
   
     
}}
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=
|WFD water body code=GB106039022850
   
|WFD water body name=Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
   
|Heavily modified water body=No
     
|Protected species present=No
|WFD water body code=
|Invasive species present=No
     
|WFD (national) typology=
     
|WFD water body name=
     
|Pre-project morphology=
     
|Reference morphology=
     
|Heavily modified water body=
     
|Local site designation=
     
|Site designation=
     
|Protected species present=
     
|Invasive species present=
     
|Species=
     
|Dominant hydrology=
     
|Dominant substrate=
     
|River corridor land use=
     
|Average bankfull channel width category=
     
|Avrg bankfull channel width=
     
|Average bankfull channel depth category=
     
|Avrg1 bankfull channel depth=
     
|Mean discharge category=
     
|Mn discharge=
     
|Average channel gradient category=
     
|Avrg channel gradient=
     
}}
}}
{{Project_background
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=
|Funding sources=Environment Agency, Wimbledon Conservators
   
   
     
|Project started=
     
|Works started=
     
|Works completed=
     
|Project completed=
     
|Total cost category=
     
|Total1 cost=
     
|Funding sources=
     
|Investigation and design cost category=
     
|Invst and design cost=
     
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=
     
|Investigation and design Other contact forename=
     
|Investigation and design Other contact surname=
     
|Stakeholder1 engagement cost category=
     
|stk engagement cost=
     
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=
     
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=
     
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=
     
|Works1 and supervision cost category=
     
|Wrk and supervision cost=
     
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=
     
|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=
     
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact forename=
     
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact surname=
     
|Monitoring1 cost category=
     
|Monitoring2 cost=
     
|Monitoring Lead organisation=
     
|Monitoring Other contact forename=
     
|Monitoring Other contact surname=
     
|Supplementary funding information=
     
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Motivations
|Hydromorphological quality elements=
|Specific mitigation=Flood risk management
   
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Width & depth variation
   
     
|Biological quality elements=
     
|Physico-chemical quality elements=
     
|Specific mitigation=
     
|Other motivation=
     
}}
}}
{{Measures
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Toeboard removal
   
   
     
|Floodplain / River corridor=
     
|Planform / Channel pattern=
     
|Other technical measure=
     
|Management interventions=
     
|Social measures=
     
|Wider stakeholder / citizen engagement=
     
}}
}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}}

Latest revision as of 09:54, 27 October 2015

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 24' 37.95" N, 0° 15' 10.60" W
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 Planned
Project web site
Themes Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Joanna
Main contact surname Heisse
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
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

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Removal of toe boards to improve habitat and reduce flood risk. Beverley Brook and Coombe Brook flow through the golf course. Beverley Brook has toe boarding which the river is eroding behind. The river is almost devoid of inchannel features through the golf course.

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


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin London

Subcatchment

River name Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 172172 m <br />0.172 km <br />17,200 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106039022850



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Anton Crescent Wetlands Regeneration, Ashlone Wharf FCRM scheme, Barn Elms Sports Ground, Barn Elms Wetland Centre, South West London, Barnes Common, Barnes Common improvements, Beverley Brook Flow control structures, Beverley Brook d/s of Rock’s Lane, Beverley Park, Cuddington Park... further results


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106039022850
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
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 Environment Agency, Wimbledon Conservators

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 Flood risk management
Hydromorphology Width & depth variation
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Toeboard removal
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