Case study:Lower Woodsford

Jump to: navigation, search
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Approve case study


(0 votes)

To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.

Location: 50° 43' 10", -2° 18' 59"
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 Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology
Country England
Main contact forename Aly
Main contact surname Maxwell
Main contact user ID User:Alymaxwell
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Case_study:River Frome Rehabilitation Plan

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
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 upper reach of the Lower Woodsford Channel has been historically straightened but there are now signs of recovery. The option for this reach is for ‘Assisted Natural Recovery’. Riffles and berms are developing which are improving the channel condition. Dredging in the lower reaches has removed in channel features such as riffles and glides resulting in a low variety of flow patterns. This also limits the range of habitats and species that the river can support. A deep drainage ditch had been created in the 1970’s running parallel and south to the river for nearly 1800m’s. The material this generated was used to embank the river to reduce flood flows. There’s a lack of riparian trees and shrubs in this management unit. Trees provide habitat at the river banks for insects and birds. Trees also provide shade which helps reduces the river temperature creating better conditions for fish. The majority of floodplain land to the south of the river has been in arable production since the drainage activities. This limits the river corridor habitat value and allows sediment runoff to enter the river affecting in channel ecology. Soils and silts enter the channel covering gravels that Salmon and Trout spawn on, which reduce their reproductive success. Proposed works will consist of: • riparian tree planting • introduction of large woody debris • embankment removal • removal of hard bank protection • ditch reprofiling • channel and scrape creation

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.

Several monitoring technqiues will be employed as part of this project including:

Fixed point photography SEdiment sampling Electro Fishing Aerial Photography

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Image gallery


Catchment and subcatchment


River basin district South West
River basin Dorset


River name Frome Dorset (Lower) & Furzebrook Stream
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 200 - 500 m
Maximum altitude (m) 223
223 m
0.223 km
22,300 cm
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Arable and Horticulture
Waterbody ID GB108044009690

Other case studies in this subcatchment: 2e Lower Woodsford River and Floodplain Enhancement, Bockhampton Enhancement, Hurst Bridge (downstream), Louds Mill (Downstream)m Enhancement, Lower Bockhampton, Martins River Island, Moreton Channel Gravel Reprofiling, North Channel Upper Reach, River Frome Rehabilitation Plan, Unit 1b - Long Bridge to Downstream of Louds Mill... further results


WFD water body codes Frome Dorset (Lower) & Furzebrook Stream
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name GB108044009690
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
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

Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology Channel pattern/planform
Other reasons for the project


Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Introducing large woody debris, Removal of bank reinforcements
Floodplain / River corridor Tree planting, Riparian planting, Removal of embankments, Scrapes
Planform / Channel pattern Re-profiled ditch
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)


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