Case study:Strategic redistribution of channel substrate: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
|Main contact surname=Clapham
|Main contact surname=Clapham
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency
|Partner organisations=The Parks Trust
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=This project was a follow-up from a previous project (Ouzel habitat improvements).  Original project used large wooden deflectors in the channel to clean underlying gravels and kickstart natural process.  However, the wood used was too small, and the channel over-large and -modified for the deflectors to be instigate significant change.   
|Project summary=This project was a follow-up from a previous project (Ouzel habitat improvements).  Original project used large wooden deflectors in the channel to clean underlying gravels and kickstart natural process.  However, the wood used was too small, and the channel over-large and -modified for the deflectors to be instigate significant change.   


This project used a long reach excavator to re-form the channel, creating a series of deeper pools and riffle sections, where previously the channel was wide shallow and uniform in both flow and bed morphology.
This project used a long reach excavator to re-form the channel, creating a series of deeper pools and riffle sections, where previously the channel was wide shallow and uniform in both flow and bed morphology.  
 


There was evidence of water vole activity at this site, therefore banks were left untouched and the 'shoulder' or pinch-point' features were detached from the bank leaving a 30 cm 'gutter'.  This prevented the possibility of any water voles becoming entombed in the bank.  Following the work faggot bundles will be installed in these gutters to allow gradually build up of sediment an development of vegetation in the gaps.
|Monitoring surveys and results=Ongoing fish surveys are being undertaken at this location, as well as habitat assessment.
|Monitoring surveys and results=Ongoing fish surveys are being undertaken at this location, as well as habitat assessment.
}}
}}

Revision as of 11:28, 2 November 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: 52° 1' 30.76" N, 0° 42' 49.15" 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 Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Urban
Country England
Main contact forename Rob
Main contact surname Clapham
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations The Parks Trust
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.


This project was a follow-up from a previous project (Ouzel habitat improvements). Original project used large wooden deflectors in the channel to clean underlying gravels and kickstart natural process. However, the wood used was too small, and the channel over-large and -modified for the deflectors to be instigate significant change.

This project used a long reach excavator to re-form the channel, creating a series of deeper pools and riffle sections, where previously the channel was wide shallow and uniform in both flow and bed morphology.

There was evidence of water vole activity at this site, therefore banks were left untouched and the 'shoulder' or pinch-point' features were detached from the bank leaving a 30 cm 'gutter'. This prevented the possibility of any water voles becoming entombed in the bank. Following the work faggot bundles will be installed in these gutters to allow gradually build up of sediment an development of vegetation in the gaps.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Ongoing fish surveys are being undertaken at this location, as well as habitat assessment.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name River Ouzel (Open University)
WFD water body codes GB105033037971
WFD (national) typology Low, Medium, Calcareous
WFD water body name Ouzel US Caldecote Mill
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present Yes
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use Recreation grassland / grazed
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)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started
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
Hydromorphology
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