Case study:The Barge Walk, Hampton Court: 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=GB106039023232
   
|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 11:42, 6 October 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° 23' 40.55" N, 0° 19' 52.25" 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 Planned
Project web site
Themes Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Jason
Main contact surname Debney
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation London Borough of Richmond
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations Thames Landscape Strategy, HR Palaces, LB Richmond, EA, Swingbridge II Surrey Care Trust, Richmond & Surrey Community Pay Back
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.


Floodplain restoration and making space for water, as well as reedbed creation and the creation of wetland and grass habitat. Removal of invasive species (himalayan balsam control and self-sown sycamore removal). Floodplain restoration, reedbed and wetland and grass habitat creation.

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

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


2009: 10-20 volunteer and community pay back days to remove invasive species (as mentioned above) including reedback/sedge planting. Management plan is in place.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin Maidenhead to Sunbury

Subcatchment

River name Thames (Egham to Teddington)
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 7171 m <br />0.071 km <br />7,100 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106039023232



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Broom Road Recreation Ground, Chertsey meads, Hampton Court Palace, Hurst Park, Teddington Wharf


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106039023232
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) 1000 m1 km <br />100,000 cm <br />
Project started 2011/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

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 Invasive species
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project Landscape enhancement


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor Creation of wetland, Habitat creation, Creation of reedbed
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