Case study:Tottenham Lock Floating Ecosystem

From RESTORE
Revision as of 14:12, 19 October 2016 by Alexrrc (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° 35' 11.36" N, 0° 3' 23.11" 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 Habitat and biodiversity, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Galen
Main contact surname Fulford
Main contact user ID User:Biomatrix Water
Contact organisation Biomatrix Water Solutions Limited
Contact organisation web site http://www.biomatrixwater.com
Partner organisations Land & Water; Terraqua
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 project was under Thames 21 initiative to improve rivers and canals for people and wildlife. The objective was to increase wildlife habitat and biodiversity in the area, at the same time helping to reduce pollution, improve water quality and visually soften hard edges. The project involves installation of a series of Floating Ecosystem active edges made up of various sizes, based along the riverside. The systems are connected to the riverside to the riverside using a heavy duty weighted mooring line with a break strength exceeding 5,000 KG. The mooring line is fixed at the top using a 12mm mechanical expansion bolt and the bottom anchor is connected to an anchor weight. The anchor line is threaded directly through the floating structure and stainless steel bracketing system. This configuration allows the floating ecosystem to move smoothly up and down during changing water levels, while floating up during flood events and lowering down during low water conditions allowing vertical movement, whilst minimising any horizontal movement.

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

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Planting earlier in the season allowed top and root growth to establish more quickly thus encouraging faster biofilm development leading and therefore water quality improvement. Earlier establishment of plant growth provided new habitat and encouraged nesting birds, adding to the biodiversity.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin London

Subcatchment

River name Lee (from Tottenham Locks to the Tideway)
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 141141 m <br />0.141 km <br />14,100 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Urban
Waterbody ID GB106038077852



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Blackhorse Lane Waterfront Park, Dagenham Brook de-silting, Essex Wharf, Hackney Marsh recreation grounds, Hackney Marshes - Wick Field recreation ground, Lea Bridge Waterway Wall Improvements, Lee Navigation by Walthamstow Marshes, Springfield Marina


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106038077852
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Lee (from Tottenham Locks to the Tideway)
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
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
Works started 2015/05/04
Works completed 2015/05/06
Project completed 2015/05/06
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 Self cleaning ecosystem to enhance water quality and biodiversity, and avoid pollution
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Floating bank structures planted with vegetation to improve aethetics and water quality
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