Case study:Saving Chiswick Eyot: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 76: Line 76:
}}
}}
{{Project background
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=290
|Project started=2014/12/23
|Project started=2014/12/23
|Works started=2015/06/01
|Total cost category=50 - 100 k€
|Total cost category=50 - 100 k€
|Funding sources=Commercial partners. Local charities.
|Investigation and design cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Investigation and design cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
Line 86: Line 89:
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=Martin
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=Martin
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Richardson
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Richardson
|Works1 and supervision cost category=100 - 500 k€
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Works and supervision Other contact forename=Diana
|Works and supervision Other contact surname=Catovan
|Post-project1 management and maintenance cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Post-project management and maintenance Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact forename=Paul
|Post-project management and maintenance Other contact surname=Clark
|Monitoring1 cost category=1 - 10 k€
|Monitoring Lead organisation=Natural History Museum
|Monitoring Other contact forename=Diana
|Monitoring Other contact surname=Catovon
}}
}}
{{Motivations
{{Motivations

Revision as of 10:11, 10 June 2015

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° 29' 15.00" N, 0° 14' 45.00" 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 In progress
Project web site http://www.savingchiswickeyot.com
Themes Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename Martin
Main contact surname Richardson
Main contact user ID User:Mobilitydream
Contact organisation Natural History Museum
Contact organisation web site http://www.nhm.ac.uk
Partner organisations Royal Holloway University of London, MoLA, Fullers
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
Eyot erosion

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Saving Chiswick Eyot

1 Martin D. Richardson, 1 Paul Clark, 2 David Morritt

1Department of Zoology, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London. 2Royal Holloway University of London, Department of Biosciences, Egham, Surrey.

Chiswick Eyot (meaning island) is a small, historically important island in the Thames near Chiswick Mall that is subject to erosion caused in part by burrowing mitten crabs. Crab burrows occur in high densities at the site in excess of 30 per square metre. Individual burrows may be 70 cm in length and 5 cm in diameter so the amount of soil excavated is significant and the banks of the island are considerably weakened as a result thereby accelerating erosion.

We are in the process of establishing an ‘ecosystem’ of partners to address the problem of maintaining the island employing best practice techniques. An initial 3D scan of the entire island will be conducted in association with the Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA), and Leica Geosystems. Subsequent, annual scans will permit calculation of the rate of erosion with analysis of the contribution made by the mitten crab burrowing. A conventional topographic survey of part of one bank was undertaken by MoLA in 2002 and this will allow decadal scale assessment of the erosion rate caused by mitten crab burrows. High resolution aerial photographs and digitized historical Ordnance Survey maps are available dating back to at least the 1930s and these will be used to assess migration of the Eyot up and down the river, and permit analysis of changes to the island itself in terms of long term erosion.

We hope to engage the local community and form partnerships with other organisations including Thames21, the River Restoration Centre, Leica Geosystems, MoLA, and Royal Holloway University of London. Funding is being sought from both commercial and academic sources. Additionally we plan to include international partners: the California department of fish and wildlife as well as several international researchers involved in invasive mitten crab work.

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


tree and collapsing bank
Detail of entrance to mitten crab burrows in the banks of Chiswick Eyot.
Erosion behind defence structures on the north bank of the Eyot
view
view
mitten crab burrows
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin London

Subcatchment

River name Thames Middle
Area category Less than 10 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Urban
Waterbody ID GB530603911402



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Barking Creek near A13, Barking Creekmouth, Chambers Wharf, Cuckolds Haven Nature Area, Greenwich Peninsula, Lower River Roding Regeneration Project, Mill Pool, Wandsworth Riverside Quarter


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB530603911402
WFD (national) typology Intertidal
WFD water body name Thames Middle
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present Yes
Species of interest Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis)
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use Urban
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) 290290 m <br />0.29 km <br />29,000 cm <br />
Project started 2014/12/23
Works started 2015/06/01
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category 50 - 100 k€
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Commercial partners. Local charities.

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design 1 - 10 k€ Natural History Museum Paul Clark
Stakeholder engagement and communication Less than 1 k€ Royal Holloway University of London Martin Richardson
Works and works supervision 100 - 500 k€ Natural History Museum Diana Catovan
Post-project management and maintenance 1 - 10 k€ Natural History Museum Paul Clark
Monitoring 1 - 10 k€ Natural History Museum Diana Catovon



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Invasive species
Hydromorphology Structure & condition of intertidal zone
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