Case study:Meades water garden regeneration project

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 42' 6", -0° 36' 42"
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 Habitat and biodiversity, Monitoring, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Allen
Main contact surname Beechey
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Chilterns Conservation Board
Contact organisation web site http://http://www.chilternsaonb.org/conservation-board.html
Partner organisations Chiltern Chalk Streams Project
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Looking upstream at the restored river

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Two weirs were removed and the site allowed to drain. A temporary dam was built at the top of the site and river flow was piped around the working area. Working from the upstream end, a new channel was dug through the accumulated silt following the line of preferential flow. Nicospan was installed to provide support to the new channel sides and to ensure separation of the silt from the gravel infill, which was imported to form the new river bed. It was important to allow at least 500mm of gravel to provide the depth that chalkstream invertebrates require for their life stage. Excavated silt was distributed around the site within the boundary of old ponds. The new channel was tied into the original course of the river which flowed around the back of the island in the lower pond. A low-lying bund was installed in place of the weir to create a wetland feature. Following completion of the river restoration work, new paths were laid in the gardens and an interpretation board installed.

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


Downstream of the bridge during construction (top) and post-restoration (below)
Upstream of the bridge, during construction (top) and post-restoration (below)
Established wildlife upstream
Downstream of the bridge prior to project
Upstream of bridge prior to project
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Thames
River basin Colne

Subcatchment

River name Chess
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 200 - 500 m
Maximum altitude (m) 278
278 m
0.278 km
27,800 cm
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Improved grassland
Waterbody ID GB106039029870



Site

Name Meades Water Garden
WFD water body codes GB106039029870
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Chess
Pre-project morphology Single channel, Straight, High width:depth
Reference morphology Single channel, Sinuous, Step-pool, Pool-riffle
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation UK - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology Groundwater
Dominant substrate Bedrock, Gravel
River corridor land use Urban
Average bankfull channel width category 5 - 10 m
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
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) 120 m
0.12 km
12,000 cm
Project started 2007/01/01
Works started
Works completed 2008/01/01
Project completed
Total cost category 50 - 100 k€
Total cost (k€) 78 k€
78,000 €
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 Reservoir impoundment
Hydromorphology Quantity & dynamics of flow, Flow velocities
Biology Macrophytes, Invertebrates
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project Habitat enhancement


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Planting, Introduction of gravel, Weir removal
Floodplain / River corridor Creation of wetland, Vegetation removal
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other Public consultation, Information provision


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
Macrophytes Yes Yes Yes Improvement
Invertebrates Yes Yes Improvement

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
http://www.therrc.co.uk/case studies/meades%20water%20garden.pdf River Restoration Centre Case Study

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information