Case study:Clayton Vale: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 33: Line 33:
{{Site}}
{{Site}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration,
|Biological quality elements=Fish,
}}
{{Measures}}
{{Measures}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}

Revision as of 14:44, 13 May 2014

2.00
(one vote)


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


Location: 53° 29' 30.04" N, 2° 10' 36.62" 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 In progress
Project web site
Themes Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Urban
Country England
Main contact forename Oliver
Main contact surname Southgate
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Case_study:River Irwell Restoration Project

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
weir removal within Clayton Vale

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Manchester City Council identified that the Clayton Vale portion of the study area (east of Bank Bridge Road) was occupied by a historical landfill site, which was used for the disposal of ash cinders from the Stuart Street Power Station and as a municipal landfill. Consultants Atkins are in the process of undertaking ground investigations to determine leachate, groundwater and soil contamination including waste characterisation testing to determine the status of these materials and to allow an effective remediation strategy to be developed for the any river channel/corridor restoration works and to prevent the creation of new pollutant linkages or the exacerbation of existing ones, in upstream demonstration area.

It will be a huge achievement if we can restore this most heavily degraded section of waterbody, but the aspiration is to create a safe riverine environment for all, reconnect and integrate the river corridor back with the adjoining greenspace and public parks, and restore the river so that it is capable of supporting diverse aquatic fauna once more.

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


Weir prior to works
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district North West
River basin Irwell

Subcatchment

River name River Medlock (Lumb Brook to Irwell)
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 121121 m <br />0.121 km <br />12,100 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Urban
Waterbody ID GB112069061152



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Philips Park, River Irwell Restoration Project


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 Barriers to fish migration
Hydromorphology
Biology Fish
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



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information