Case study:Hackbridge Restoration: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Location=51.377342224121, -0.160535976290703 | |Location=51.377342224121, -0.160535976290703 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{Project overview | ||
|Status= | |Status=Complete | ||
|Country=England | |||
|Main contact forename=Bella | |||
|Main contact surname=Davies | |||
|Contact organisation=Wandle Trust | |||
|Multi-site=No | |||
|Project summary=Overall aims included:<br>- Increase survival rate of juvenile coarse fish by increasing amount of suitable habitat.<br>- Increase variety of in-channel habitat throughout the previously dredged section to provide habitat for juvenile and adult coarse fish.<br>Specific aims were:<br>- Create backwaters in low ground along the true right bank.<br>- Create new marginal habitat amongst areas of heavy siltation on the true right bank.<br>- Open up old ditch that used to flow in the smaller u/s weir pool.<br>- Add localised gravel shoals to the river bed.<br><br>Description of works:<br>- Creation of projections using coir rolls along line of silt deposition boundary, open at downstream end and lightly planted to create shallow marginal habitat for juvenile fish.<br>- Raise bed in localised areas using gravel shoals to add variety to instream habitat. Shoals should strengthen natural features where deposition is occurring naturally. Mitigate loss of water holding areas by creating backwaters.<br>- Use present low lying land and re-open old features that have become filled in and overgrown. New wetted ditch to provide alternative migratory route for coarse fish and extend type of habitat found in Bigely Ditch.<br>- If possible lower height of sluices at mill or footbridge. - Dredging in 1998 resulted in loss of habitat suitable for juvenile fish including loss of marginal habitat by siltation.<br>- Enhancements have potential to extend wet-woodland and increase potential water vole habitat. | |||
|Country= | |||
|Main contact forename= | |||
|Main contact surname= | |||
|Contact organisation= | |||
|Multi-site= | |||
|Project summary= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Image_gallery}} | {{Image_gallery}} |
Revision as of 10:32, 9 April 2014
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Bella |
Main contact surname | Davies |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Wandle Trust |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Overall aims included:
- Increase survival rate of juvenile coarse fish by increasing amount of suitable habitat.
- Increase variety of in-channel habitat throughout the previously dredged section to provide habitat for juvenile and adult coarse fish.
Specific aims were:
- Create backwaters in low ground along the true right bank.
- Create new marginal habitat amongst areas of heavy siltation on the true right bank.
- Open up old ditch that used to flow in the smaller u/s weir pool.
- Add localised gravel shoals to the river bed.
Description of works:
- Creation of projections using coir rolls along line of silt deposition boundary, open at downstream end and lightly planted to create shallow marginal habitat for juvenile fish.
- Raise bed in localised areas using gravel shoals to add variety to instream habitat. Shoals should strengthen natural features where deposition is occurring naturally. Mitigate loss of water holding areas by creating backwaters.
- Use present low lying land and re-open old features that have become filled in and overgrown. New wetted ditch to provide alternative migratory route for coarse fish and extend type of habitat found in Bigely Ditch.
- If possible lower height of sluices at mill or footbridge. - Dredging in 1998 resulted in loss of habitat suitable for juvenile fish including loss of marginal habitat by siltation.
- Enhancements have potential to extend wet-woodland and increase potential water vole habitat.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchment
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
|