Case study:Urban River Enhancement Scheme (URES) in Burnley

From RESTORE
Revision as of 15:23, 26 August 2014 by JoshRRC (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: 53° 47' 22.70" N, 2° 14' 24.62" 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 In progress
Project web site
Themes Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Urban
Country England
Main contact forename Josh
Main contact surname Robins
Main contact user ID User:JoshRRC
Contact organisation River Restoration Centre
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Burnleys industrial past left its rivers in a very poor state. The channels were lined with cobbles, fast flowing and uninhabitable for fish species. This project was commissioned to bring back some of the wildlife that had been lost and to install a higher regard for the environment within the community.

The project aimed to do this by altering the straight and narrow channels to resemble a natural river with pools and riffles. As well as this, a passage would be created to allow fish to move up and down the stretch. They hoped that these measures would encourage wildlife back to the area. Another large part of the project was initiating community engagement. A range of courses, talks, events and shows were organised to get the community involved and passionate about their environment.

Trout populations have increased significantly following the works, this has also attracted birds and other species. It is hoped that once sediment settles on the new features more wildlife will be encouraged to populate the river.

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.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
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)
Project started 2011/08/01
Works started 2013/03/01
Works completed
Project completed 2014/10/01
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 straight channels, poor aesthetics
Biology Fish: Abundance, barriers to migration
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications introduction of pools and riffles
Floodplain / River corridor fish passage installed
Planform / Channel pattern Channel widening
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Community Events; River open days; River Walks; Bioblitz event; Education events; School Tours
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