Case study:Ashlone Wharf FCRM scheme

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, 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° 28' 18", -0° 13' 22"
Edit location
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 Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Dave
Main contact surname Webb
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
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.


Planned objectives:
• Potential to improve conveyance and reduce sedimentation and improve the ecology of the Beverley Brook.
• Potential to undertake river restoration in areas where the Beverley Brook has previously been re-sectioned or modified, and where it currently flows through areas of open space.
• Potential to remove areas of old or redundant bank protection/structures and re-naturalise the channel banks.
• Potential to undertake habitat creation or enhancement works.

Objectives carried out (2012):
Flood and coastal risk management scheme to repair tidal sluice incorporating fish pass and reedbed.

At the lower section of Beverley Brook the flow is diverted into a series of culvert which outfall into the Thames and only 20% of the flow continues down the main channel. As a result the flows are low and there is a lot of siltation and lack of inchannel processes. Drivers: Biodiversity Action Plan, Water Framework Directive.

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.


Improvement of structural operability enables review of operation regimes to minimise the requirement for further improvement works. Whilst replacement of existing structures is not a sustainable measure, the operating regime that follows increases the long term condition of the river and structure.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin London

Subcatchment

River name Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 172
172 m
0.172 km
17,200 cm
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106039022850



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Anton Crescent Wetlands Regeneration, Barn Elms Sports Ground, Barn Elms Wetland Centre, South West London, Barnes Common, Barnes Common improvements, Beverley Brook Flow control structures, Beverley Brook d/s of Rock’s Lane, Beverley Park, Cuddington Park, Horne Way Weir... further results


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106039022850
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Beverley Brook (Motspur Park to Thames) and Pyl Brook at West Barnes
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) 100 m
0.1 km
10,000 cm
Project started 2011/05/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Risk Management

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 Modify structures to improve fish passage
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other Creation of fish passes
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