Case study:Lea Bridge Waterway Wall Improvements: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:
}}
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=
|WFD water body code=GB106038077852
   
|Heavily modified water body=No
   
|Protected species present=No
     
|Invasive species present=No
|WFD water body code=
     
|WFD (national) typology=
     
|WFD water body name=
     
|Pre-project morphology=
     
|Reference morphology=
     
|Heavily modified water body=
     
|Local site designation=
     
|Site designation=
     
|Protected species present=
     
|Invasive species present=
     
|Species=
     
|Dominant hydrology=
     
|Dominant substrate=
     
|River corridor land use=
     
|Average bankfull channel width category=
     
|Avrg bankfull channel width=
     
|Average bankfull channel depth category=
     
|Avrg1 bankfull channel depth=
     
|Mean discharge category=
     
|Mn discharge=
     
|Average channel gradient category=
     
|Avrg channel gradient=
     
}}
}}
{{Project background
{{Project background

Revision as of 10:30, 2 September 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° 33' 44.40" N, 0° 2' 50.32" 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 Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Leela
Main contact surname O’Dea
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
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

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Enhance piled structure with hanging basket style gabions specifically designed to fit within the piled recess. Install 20 sandmartin nesting tubes in the wall through bespoke design for the project. The waterway wall needed replacing and there was no option for break out.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Photographs pre-works
Photographs post-works

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


So far so good some modifications were made to the design of teh sand martin nesting tubes once the first was installed. Further reed baskets are being installed as only 5 were purchse originally, another 15 will be on site soon.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin London

Subcatchment

River name Lee (from Tottenham Locks to the Tideway)
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 141141 m <br />0.141 km <br />14,100 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Urban
Waterbody ID GB106038077852



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Blackhorse Lane Waterfront Park, Dagenham Brook de-silting, Essex Wharf, Hackney Marsh recreation grounds, Hackney Marshes - Wick Field recreation ground, Lee Navigation by Walthamstow Marshes, Springfield Marina, Tottenham Lock Floating Ecosystem


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106038077852
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
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 No
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) 20 m0.02 km <br />2,000 cm <br />
Project started 2010/01/01
Works started
Works completed 2010/01/01
Project completed
Total cost category 1 - 10 k€
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources British Waterways major works programme

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 Sandmartin tubes installation
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