Case study:River Pool Linear Park Enhacement: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
series of berms on alternating banks along a section of 300m constructed from site-won wood felled along this section | series of berms on alternating banks along a section of 300m constructed from site-won wood felled along this section | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Case study subcatchment}} | {{Case study subcatchment | ||
|Subcatchment=Ravensbourne | |||
}} | |||
{{Site}} | {{Site}} | ||
{{Project background}} | {{Project background}} |
Revision as of 12:40, 16 August 2012
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - fisheries"Land use management - fisheries" is not in the list (Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydropower, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, ...) of allowed values for the "Theme" property. |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Nick |
Main contact surname | Elbourne |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | River Restoration Centre |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.therrc.co.uk |
Partner organisations | Thames21 |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
This section of the River Pool was featureless with very little marginal vegetation. The channel was overshadowed and habitat for fish and invertebrates was limited. In a built up borough of London, the river is flashy and the aim was to design works that would account for this, while improving the in-stream condition and the wider river corridor. This was achieved through the creation of berms on alternating banks, created using wood felled on-site. The berms were positioned in a manner to encourage the creation of pool and riffle sequences to further diversify flow conditions.
The works were built entirely by volunteers, organised through the Thames21 project. The empowerment of local volunteers fosters understanding, and long-term, there is a greater aspiration to re-visit and maintain the works. Additionally, the use of volunteers and on-site materials kept costs very low, with the whole project costing in the region of £500 (€625).
series of berms on alternating banks along a section of 300m constructed from site-won wood felled along this section
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 | Thames |
---|---|
River basin | Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne |
Subcatchment
River name | Ravensbourne |
---|---|
Area category | 10 - 100 km² |
Area (km2) | |
Maximum altitude category | Less than 100 m |
Maximum altitude (m) | 8888 m <br />0.088 km <br />8,800 cm <br /> |
Dominant geology | Calcareous |
Ecoregion | Great Britain |
Dominant land cover | Suburban |
Waterbody ID | GB106037028110 |
Other case studies in this subcatchment: ERCIP - European River Corridor Improvement Plans, The River Ravensbourne (submission for UK Rivers Prize 2016
Site
Name | |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | |
WFD (national) typology | |
WFD water body name | |
Pre-project morphology | |
Reference morphology | |
Desired post project morphology | |
Heavily modified water body | |
National/international site designation | |
Local/regional site designations | |
Protected species present | |
Invasive species present | |
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 |
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 | |
---|---|
Hydromorphology | |
Biology | |
Physico-chemical | |
Other reasons for the project |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | |
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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information