Case study:River Roding at Ray Lodge Park

From RESTORE
Revision as of 11:55, 9 August 2012 by R Vause (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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° 36' 59.43" N, 0° 3' 11.60" E
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, Hydromorphology, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename
Main contact surname
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
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

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

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


Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)

Subcatchment:Roding


Site

Edit site
Name Ray Lodge Park
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology Single channel, Impounded, High width:depth
Reference morphology Single channel, Sinuous, Pool-riffle
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body true
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology Quick run-off
Dominant substrate Bedrock
River corridor land use Urban
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) 1.851.85 m³/s <br />1,850 l/s <br />
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Edit project background
Reach length directly affected (m) 150 m0.15 km <br />15,000 cm <br />
Project started 2007/08/01
Works started 2007/10/01
Works completed 2008/01/01
Project completed
Total cost category 100 - 500 k€
Total cost (k€) 140 k€140,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources London Borough of Redbridge, Environment Agency

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design Environment Agency
Stakeholder engagement and communication Environment Agency
Works and works supervision Environment Agency
Post-project management and maintenance Environment Agency
Monitoring Environment Agency



Reasons for river restoration

Edit reasons for restoration
Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology Channel pattern/planform, Quantity & dynamics of flow
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project Landscape enhancement, Inter-tidal enhancement, Community demand


Measures

Edit Measures
Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Removal of revetments, Depth variations, Planting, Re-profiling
Floodplain / River corridor Removal of embankments
Planform / Channel pattern Creation of backwater, Creation of pond, Sinuosity
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other Participation in maintenance, Consultation, Participation in design


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
Public Accessibility Yes Yes Improvement


Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents



Image gallery



Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information