Case study:Knock Burn low flow channel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Approval status=Draft | |Approval status=Draft | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location}} | {{Location | ||
|Location=339612 374557 | |||
}} | |||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=Complete | |Status=Complete |
Revision as of 14:48, 18 February 2015
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Environmental flows and water resources, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban |
Country | Northern Ireland |
Main contact forename | Judith |
Main contact surname | Bankhead |
Main contact user ID | User:judithbankhead |
Contact organisation | Rivers Agency, Northern Ireland (DARDNI) |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.dardni.gov.uk/rivers |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
As part of a larger biodiversity project for Stormont Estate, enhancement works were required for the Knock Burn. The burn had been overwidened in past years, resulting in a shallow, slow flowing channel, which required regular maintenance due to silt accumulation. It was decided to cretae a sinuous low flow channel, using the silt and bed material to creat a narrower, faster flowing channel. No additional materials were added to the channel, and land drainage was picked up during the new channel creation. All 200m of the project was completed in one day, using a mini digger. The planform of the channel was designed on site, by working downstream and trying to follow the flow patterns as they appeared.
Monitoring surveys and results
Pre and post photographs were taken. A standard maintenance post audit form was completed 9 months after the project was completed. Annual photography is used to monitor the project. Assessment carried out during photography shows that the channel is maintaining itself overall, with fish present (which had not been the case before). Wetland vegetation has developed on the secondary channel, helping to stabilise the silty substrate
Lessons learnt
Be opportunistic. The upper stretch of the work has been more successful than the lower reach, probably due to a backwater effect from a pond at the downstream end, and partially due to the reduction of energy through the full reach. Since completion in 2011, no further maintenance work has been required (up to 2014), which is a cost savings for the Agency.
The technique will be used again in future projects.
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
|