Case study:Bonesgate Phase 2

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° 22' 8", -0° 16' 35"
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 Complete
Project web site
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename Joanna
Main contact surname Heisse
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.


Realignment and reprofiling of river bank to create a meander; creation of a fishing pond; habitat management to improve visibility and access along the river; improve the footpaths along the river. To improve the local area; to improve and restore the river and riverbanks to enhance the natural state of the stream and encourage indigenous flora and fauna to develop; to provide access and amenity value as well and improve views of the river. It is part of Surry Green Arc improvements. Phase 1 on the adjacent stretch of the Bonesgate was chosen as an exemplary project for the Green Arc.

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 London

Subcatchment

River name Hogsmill
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m) 192
192 m
0.192 km
19,200 cm
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106039017440



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Elmbridge Meadows, Hogsmill River Connectivity Project, Hogsmill Sewage Treatment Works phase 1, Moor Lane Allotments, River Hogsmill Restoration Project, Three Bridge, Kingston


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106039017440
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Hogsmill
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) 700 m
0.7 km
70,000 cm
Project started 2008/01/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category 100 - 500 k€
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, Width & depth variation
Biology Fish
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Bank reprofiling
Floodplain / River corridor Creation of pond
Planform / Channel pattern Creation of meanders
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Aesthetics, Improved public access
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