Case study:River Avon at East Chisenbury: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(XML import)
 
No edit summary
Line 54: Line 54:
}}
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=
|Name=East Chisenbury
   
|WFD water body code=GB108043022350
   
|WFD (national) typology=Low, Medium, Calcareous
      East Chisenbury
|WFD water body name=Hampshire Avon (East)
|WFD water body code=
|Pre-project morphology=High width:depth,Single channel
     
|Reference morphology=Sinuous,Pool-riffle
|WFD (national) typology=
|Heavily modified water body=Yes
     
|Protected species present=No
|WFD water body name=
|Invasive species present=No
     
|Dominant hydrology=Quick run-off,Groundwater
|Pre-project morphology=
|Dominant substrate=Gravel
      High width:depth,Single channel
|River corridor land use=Extensive agriculture,Urban
|Reference morphology=
|Average bankfull channel width category=5 - 10 m
      Sinuous,Pool-riffle
|Average bankfull channel depth category=0.5 - 2 m
|Heavily modified water body=
      true
|Local site designation=
     
|Site designation=
     
|Protected species present=
     
|Invasive species present=
     
|Species=
     
|Dominant hydrology=
      Quick run-off,Groundwater
|Dominant substrate=
      Gravel
|River corridor land use=
      Extensive agriculture,Urban
|Average bankfull channel width category=
      5 - 10 m
|Avrg bankfull channel width=
     
|Average bankfull channel depth category=
      0.5 - 2 m
|Avrg1 bankfull channel depth=
     
|Mean discharge category=
     
|Mn discharge=
     
|Average channel gradient category=
     
|Avrg channel gradient=
     
}}
}}
{{Project_background
{{Project_background

Revision as of 12:11, 9 August 2012

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: 51° 16' 12.00" N, 1° 48' 32.36" 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 Spatial planning, Flood risk management, Social benefits, Monitoring
Country England
Main contact forename Ruth
Main contact surname Clarricoates
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Natural England
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

This case study hasn’t got any project summary, you can add some by editing the project overview.

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.

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment


Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)

Catchment

River basin district South West
River basin South Devon

Subcatchment

River name Avon
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 500 - 1000 m
Maximum altitude (m) 513513 m <br />0.513 km <br />51,300 cm <br />
Dominant geology Siliceous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Improved grassland
Waterbody ID GB108046004940



Site

Edit site
Name East Chisenbury
WFD water body codes GB108043022350
WFD (national) typology Low, Medium, Calcareous
WFD water body name Hampshire Avon (East)
Pre-project morphology High width:depth, Single channel
Reference morphology Sinuous, Pool-riffle
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology Quick run-off, Groundwater
Dominant substrate Gravel
River corridor land use Extensive agriculture, Urban
Average bankfull channel width category 5 - 10 m
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
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

Edit project background
Reach length directly affected (m) 720 m0.72 km <br />72,000 cm <br />
Project started 2005/01/01
Works started 2006/01/01
Works completed 2009/01/01
Project completed
Total cost category 50 - 100 k€
Total cost (k€) 96 k€96,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Wessex Chalk Streams Project, Environment Agency

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design Environment Agency
Stakeholder engagement and communication Environment Agency
Works and works supervision Environment Agency
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Edit reasons for restoration
Mitigation of a pressure Flood defence
Hydromorphology Width & depth variation, Flow velocities, Substrate conditions, Channel pattern/planform
Biology Fish: Abundance, Invertebrates: Abundance, Macrophytes
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project Bank erosion, Habitat enhancement


Measures

Edit Measures
Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Introduction of LWD, Deflectors, Tree works, Bed raising using hurdle, Marginal planting
Floodplain / River corridor Reconnection to the riparian zone
Planform / Channel pattern Narrowing, Introduction of LWD deflectors
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Width & depth variation Yes Yes Improvement
Flow velocities Yes Yes Improvement
Substrate conditions Yes Yes Improvement

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Fish: Abundance Yes Yes Yes Improvement
Macrophytes Yes Yes Yes Improvement
Invertebrates: Abundance Yes Yes Yes Improvement

Physico-chemical quality elements

Edit 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

Edit Other responses
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Public use Yes Yes Improvement


Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents



Image gallery



Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information