Case study:Chigwell Brook: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|WFD water body code=GB106037028180 | |||
|WFD water body name=Roding (Cripsey Brook to Loxford Water) | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |||
|Protected species present=No | |||
|WFD water body code= | |Invasive species present=No | ||
|WFD water body name= | |||
|Heavily modified water body= | |||
|Protected species present= | |||
|Invasive species present= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project_background | {{Project_background | ||
Line 153: | Line 110: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
|Hydromorphological quality elements= | |Hydromorphological quality elements=Channel pattern/planform, Quantity & dynamics of flow, Width & depth variation | ||
|Biological quality elements=Invertebrates, Help to promote marginal habitat for the local fauna and flora | |||
|Biological quality elements= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures | ||
|Bank and bed modifications measure= | |Bank and bed modifications measure=Deculverting, Toe protection, Bank reprofiling, | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} | {{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 2 January 2019
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Becca |
Main contact surname | O’Shea |
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 |
Project summary
Culvert removal. The Chigwell Brook along this section is a relatively natural woodland brook. The stretch includes three long culverts, however it is unclear why culverting was put in place at all. The proposal is simply to remove the line of three culverts, the elongated headwalls and the concrete revetment upstream and downstream of each structure. The brook is shaded by the mature trees growing within the valley. There is little marginal vegetation, but this can be expected (RCTshredder communities). The bed is primarily exposed gravels. FRM should be improved; the cross-sectional flow capacity is likely to be improved as the culverts are fairly low and narrow. Debris was apparent at the mouth of one culvert at the time of survey. Ongoing maintenance should be lowered by the proposal as the risk of significant obstruction from debris at the mouth of the culverts will be removed.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Fresh Wharf, Land opposite Wanstead Park, River Roding at Ray Lodge Park, Valentines Park, Weir upstream of Redbridge roundabout
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|