Case study:Arborfield nature like bypass and weirs project
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Dominic |
Main contact surname | Martyn |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
In this reach, impassable flow control structures impounded the river by 1.4m, for over 4km upstream. WFD fisheries surveys determined moderate to poor ecological status upstream of the structures, with good ecological status downstream.
Project objectives to improve WFD status upstream of weir structures from 'moderate' to 'good', along with flood alleviation. Works involved lowering of 5 structures along an 800m section of river, construction of a 200m nature-like bypass channel, in addition to two backwaters and creation of 80m of new riffle habitat for spawning.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)
Site
Name | Loddon at Arborfield |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | GB106039023160 |
WFD (national) typology | Low, Medium, Calcareous |
WFD water body name | Loddon (Swallowfield to River Thames confluence) |
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 | Target fish species: sea trout, eels, dace, barbel, chub, roach, bullhead, lamprey and pike. |
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 | 1 - 10 m³/s |
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) | 2.162.16 m³/s <br />2,160 l/s <br /> |
Average channel gradient category | |
Average channel gradient | |
Average unit stream power (W/m2) |
Project background
Reach length directly affected (m) | 800m0.8 km <br />80,000 cm <br /> |
---|---|
Project started | 2010/06/30 |
Works started | |
Works completed | 2011/07/06 |
Project completed | |
Total cost category | more than 10000 k€ |
Total cost (k€) | ~596"~" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property. |
Benefit to cost ratio | |
Funding sources | DEFRA, Environment Agency FCRM and Fisheries, Thames Water, Barbel Society |
Cost for project phases
Phase | cost category | cost exact (k€) | Lead organisation | Contact forename | Contact surname |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Investigation and design | 100 - 500 k€ | 120120 k€ <br />120,000 € <br /> | |||
Stakeholder engagement and communication | |||||
Works and works supervision | 100 - 500 k€ | ~450"~" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property. | |||
Post-project management and maintenance | |||||
Monitoring | 10 - 50 k€ | 2424 k€ <br />24,000 € <br /> |
Reasons for river restoration
Mitigation of a pressure | Barriers to fish migration, Flood risk management |
---|---|
Hydromorphology | |
Biology | Fish |
Physico-chemical | |
Other reasons for the project |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | Creation of 80m of (riffle habitat) spawning gravels. |
Floodplain / River corridor | Thames Water weir lowering and repair work to four out of five structures - to lower upstream water levels and reduce overbank flow frequency. |
Planform / Channel pattern | Construction of 200m weir bypass channel to create free fish migration status. Two backwater areas created towards the end of the bypass channel and directly downstream of its exit. |
Other | |
Non-structural measures
| |
Management interventions | |
Social measures (incl. engagement) | |
Other | Presentations and meetings with local citizens. Volunteers involved in construction and future management of project. |
Monitoring
Hydromorphological quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
Channel pattern/planform | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Awaiting results |
Quantity & dynamics of flow | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Awaiting results |
Biological quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
Fish | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Awaiting results |
Invertebrates | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Awaiting results |
Macrophytes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Awaiting results |
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 | |||
Habitat mapping | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Awaiting results |
Monitoring documents
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information
Post-project ecological/hydromorphological monitoring assessments during 2011/12. Data should be available during 2012.