Case study:Chigwell Brook

From RESTORE
Revision as of 16:01, 2 January 2019 by Alexrrc (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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° 37' 12.52" N, 0° 4' 26.67" 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 Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Becca
Main contact surname O’Shea
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations
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.


Culvert removal. The Chigwell Brook along this section is a relatively natural woodland brook. The stretch includes three long culverts, however it is unclear why culverting was put in place at all. The proposal is simply to remove the line of three culverts, the elongated headwalls and the concrete revetment upstream and downstream of each structure. The brook is shaded by the mature trees growing within the valley. There is little marginal vegetation, but this can be expected (RCTshredder communities). The bed is primarily exposed gravels. FRM should be improved; the cross-sectional flow capacity is likely to be improved as the culverts are fairly low and narrow. Debris was apparent at the mouth of one culvert at the time of survey. Ongoing maintenance should be lowered by the proposal as the risk of significant obstruction from debris at the mouth of the culverts will be removed.

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 Thames
River basin Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne

Subcatchment

River name Roding (Cripsey Brook to Loxford Water)
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 124124 m <br />0.124 km <br />12,400 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Arable and Horticulture
Waterbody ID GB106037028180



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Fresh Wharf, Land opposite Wanstead Park, River Roding at Ray Lodge Park, Valentines Park, Weir upstream of Redbridge roundabout


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106037028180
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Roding (Cripsey Brook to Loxford Water)
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) 200 m0.2 km <br />20,000 cm <br />
Project started 2008/01/01
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

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology Channel pattern/planform, Quantity & dynamics of flow, Width & depth variation
Biology Invertebrates, Help to promote marginal habitat for the local fauna and flora
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Deculverting, Toe protection, Bank reprofiling
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