Case study:River Roding at Ray Lodge Park: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 45: Line 45:
|Mn discharge=1.85
|Mn discharge=1.85
}}
}}
{{Project_background
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=
|Reach length directly affected=150 m
   
|Project started=2007/08/01
   
|Works started=2007/10/01
      150 m
|Works completed=2008/01/01
|Project started=
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€
      2007/08/01
|Total1 cost=175 k€
|Works started=
|Funding sources=London Borough of Redbridge, Environment Agency
      2007/10/01
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Environment Agency
|Works completed=
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=Environment Agency
      2008/01/01
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Environment Agency
|Project completed=
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=Environment Agency
     
|Monitoring Lead organisation=Environment Agency
|Total cost category=
      100 - 500 k€
|Total1 cost=
      140 k€
|Funding sources=
      London Borough of Redbridge,Environment Agency
|Investigation and design cost category=
     
|Invst and design cost=
     
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Investigation and design Other contact forename=
     
|Investigation and design Other contact surname=
     
|Stakeholder1 engagement cost category=
     
|stk engagement cost=
     
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=
     
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=
     
|Works1 and supervision cost category=
     
|Wrk and supervision cost=
     
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Works and supervision Other contact forename=
     
|Works and supervision Other contact surname=
     
|Post-project1 management and maintenance cost category=
     
|Post-project2 management and maintenance cost=
     
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact forename=
     
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact surname=
     
|Monitoring1 cost category=
     
|Monitoring2 cost=
     
|Monitoring Lead organisation=
      Environment Agency
|Monitoring Other contact forename=
     
|Monitoring Other contact surname=
     
|Supplementary funding information=
     
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Motivations

Revision as of 12:22, 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° 36' 59.43" N, 0° 3' 11.60" E
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 Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename Nick
Main contact surname Elbourne
Main contact user ID User:NickRRC
Contact organisation River Restoration Centre
Contact organisation web site http://www.therrc.co.uk
Partner organisations Environment Agency
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
River Roding after the restoration project

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


After works on a nearby motorway (the M11) in the 1970's ans 1980's, the River Roding was artificially diverted and straightened, resulting in poor quality wildlife habitat. The restoration project looked to address this by creating new habitats for a range of species including water voles, dragonflies and numerous fish species, without a reduction in flood protection. This was achieved through bank re-profiling, backwater creation and planting of the rivers banks.

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)

Subcatchment:Roding


Site

Edit site
Name Ray Lodge Park
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology Single channel, Impounded, High width:depth
Reference morphology Single channel, 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
Dominant substrate Bedrock
River corridor land use 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) 1.851.85 m³/s <br />1,850 l/s <br />
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Edit project background
Reach length directly affected (m) 150 m0.15 km <br />15,000 cm <br />
Project started 2007/08/01
Works started 2007/10/01
Works completed 2008/01/01
Project completed
Total cost category 100 - 500 k€
Total cost (k€) 175 k€175,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources London Borough of Redbridge, 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 Environment Agency
Monitoring Environment Agency



Reasons for river restoration

Edit reasons for restoration
Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology Channel pattern/planform, Quantity & dynamics of flow
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project Landscape enhancement, Inter-tidal enhancement, Community demand


Measures

Edit Measures
Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Removal of revetments, Depth variations, Planting, Re-profiling
Floodplain / River corridor Removal of embankments
Planform / Channel pattern Creation of backwater, Creation of pond, Sinuosity
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other Participation in maintenance, Consultation, Participation in design


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

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 Accessibility Yes Yes Improvement


Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents



Image gallery


River Roding prior to the project
The created backwater
The backwater after the establishment of vegetation, September 2009


Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description
http://www.therrc.co.uk/case studies/roding%20at%20redbridge.pdf River Restoration Centre Case Study

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information