Case study:River Hogsmill Restoration Project

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: none specified

Edit location

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	Complete
Project web site
Themes	Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
Country	England
Main contact forename	Dave
Main contact surname	Bartlett
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
Contact organisation web site	http://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/EEBC/
Partner organisations	Rosebery Housing Association, the Environment Agency, the Countryside Agency, the Big Lottery Fund, Surrey County Council, the Royal Borough of Kingston and the Lower Mole Countryside Management Project
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.

The Hogsmill River is an important wildlife refuge and has great recreational value, but was perceived by many as run down and a shadow of its former self. In places it was steep-sided, concrete-lined, crossed by service pipes and strewn with litter. Despite this, the river which originates as a chalk stream in Ewell still provides a home to fish such as stone loach, minnows and bullhead and if nature lovers are lucky, they can see one of the kingfishers which live along the river.

The Environment Agency has contributed to this project to restore the river and make it a more visible and accessible area for local residents to enjoy with improvements for wildlife and flood defenses.

The benefits of the Environment Agency river restoration work include: an improved river that will attract new wildlife and become a focal point of interest for the local community and which can be used by local schools as an educational resource; creation of a meander and backwater in a previously straightened river, which will improve the habitat for fish; the concrete bed protection on the Bonesgate Stream has been removed which will improve the appearance of the river and the local environment for wildlife; a restored footbridge to complement the adjacent new footbridge and ensuring continued safe access for residents, including wheelchairs and pushchairs; planting of a wildflower meadow, connecting the existing grassland habitats within the river valley to provide benefits for wildlife and especially butterflies; cutting back trees in the existing woodland, allowing light in for other plant life to grow diversifying the habitat and supporting more animals such as dragonflies.

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.

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment

Site

Edit site

Name	Hogsmill
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology	Actively meandering
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body	No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations	Hogsmill Local Nature Reserve
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

Edit 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

Edit reasons for restoration

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project

Measures

Edit 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

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements

Element	When monitored		Type of monitoring		Control site used	Result
	Before measures	After measures	Qualitative	Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements

Element	When monitored		Type of monitoring		Control site used	Result
	Before measures	After measures	Qualitative	Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Edit 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

Edit Other responses

Element	When monitored		Type of monitoring		Control site used	Result
	Before measures	After measures	Qualitative	Quantitative

Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents

Additional links and references

Edit links and references

Link	Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information