Case study:West Lexham Rehabilitation Project

From RESTORE
Revision as of 14:33, 23 October 2015 by Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
0.00
(0 votes)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 52° 43' 9.81" N, 0° 43' 14.84" 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
Country England
Main contact forename Nigel T.H.
Main contact surname Holmes
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations River Restoration Centre, Environment Agency, Norfolk County Council, Natural England
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
site location of works

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


A half day work to remove the impounding influence of a weir, and in the channel upstream four pools and runs were dug. A second weir, between two bridges c35m downstream of the one shown in the images, was also removed. This structure had minimal impact on habitat, but was an impediment to easy migration of fish etc. wishing pass upstream.

The structure within the meadow that was impounding the Nar upstream had some archaeological interest. For this reason there was a ‘watching brief’ from Norfolk County Council to ensure there was no damage done to any known existing interest features, and to record anything else of interest should this be revealed during the removal of the impounding structure. To minimise damage to the historical elements of the bridge, the concrete ‘boards’ were removed with great care, leaving the central pillar and upper lintel in place, yet drawing the bed down to the required level.

The effect of centuries of impoundment has been to create a sluggish/non-existent flow in the river upstream with the resultant deposition of thick layers of mud. Pools were created by widening the channel locally. To help keep the pools clear in the future, the channel was narrowed upstream. Due to the extreme depth of soft mud, narrowing was achieved by pushing in one side of the existing river edge with the back of the bucket, and the void created behind this was filled with the arisings from creating the pools. Four pools and upstream ‘runs’ were created, with the run formed upstream of the second pool from the top having a small amount of gravel spread on the bed – this was won from the bed of the river in the pool downstream.

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

Catchment

River basin district Anglian
River basin North West Norfolk

Subcatchment

River name Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 9595 m <br />0.095 km <br />9,500 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Arable and Horticulture
Waterbody ID GB105033047791



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Castle Acre Rehabilitation Project, Nar SSSI project, Narborough Rehabilitation Project, River Nar Castle Acre Common WEG project, River Nar Restoration Project, River Nar, Mileham River Restoration Project


Site

Name West Lexham
WFD water body codes GB105033047791
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Nar to confl with Blackborough Drain
Pre-project morphology Single channel, impounded, straightened
Reference morphology Single channel, Pool-riffle, Sinuous
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)
Project started 2011/02/28
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2011/03/04
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