Case study:Aubourn Rock Ramp and Habitat Works: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 31: Line 31:
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Aubourn 2.png
|Caption=Weir Pre-works
}}
{{Case study image
|File name=Aubourn 4.png
|Caption=Tree Works
}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Image gallery end}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle button}}

Revision as of 09:59, 17 February 2024

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: 53° 9' 7.49" N, 0° 38' 10.62" 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 Complete
Project web site
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Matt
Main contact surname Parr
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environement Agency
Contact organisation web site http://Environement%20Agency
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Upper Witham Restoration

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Constructed Rock Ramp.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Aubourn Weir, located in the lower reaches of the Upper River Witham, presented a major barrier to upstream fish and eel passage and the heavily-modified channel in the vicinity, lacked morphological and habitat diversity resulting in poor fish populations. Also affected by high levels of phosphates, the overall Ecological Status of this section of the river is classified as Moderate.

The key objectives of the Aubourn project were to enable fish and eel passage at the weir and to undertake additional enhancements to improve the channel diversity. The wider project, from Bassingham Bridge to beyond Aubourn Weir, sought to enhance the heavily-modified channel using existing riverside trees to create in-stream deadwood habitat, improve flow variation and provide valuable refuges for fish and invertebrates.

There were two parts to the project: construction of the rock ramp fish pass and associated bed enhancements in the vicinity of Aubourn Weir, and extensive woody habitat creation from Bassingham downstream to beyond Aubourn Weir.

Rock Ramp - Using large rocks and steel sheet piling to maintain the water levels, a series of stepped pools, rising c1m in c20cm increments, were constructed to create the “rock ramp” which now enables fish and eels to negotiate the former obstruction.
Pools – Five pools were excavated in the river bed, three above the new rock ramp and two below it. The excavated material was deposited against the bank immediately upstream of each pool to narrow the channel and speed up the flow - a technique known as “dig-and-dump”.
Woody habitat - Riverside trees, in particular those that had collapsed in to the river or were in imminent danger of doing so, were selectively hinged and/or secured into the channel and along the bank throughout the whole of the 3.25km reach. The large woody material creates flow variation and provides refuges for fish and invertebrates as the river level and speed of flow changes.

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 Pre-works
Tree Works
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



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



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information