Case study:The Mid River Crane - Aquatic Refuge Identification Plan

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


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


Location: 51° 28' 16.41" N, 0° 24' 44.39" W
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 Planned
Project web site http://cranevalley.org.uk/
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Urban
Country England
Main contact forename Gareth
Main contact surname Ryman
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation London Wildlife Trust
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
Project site map

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Aquatic Refuges

Aquatic refuges are physical places within a river corridor that allow populations of aquatic organisms to persist during times of disturbance. Disturbances experienced by the River Crane include sudden increases in flow and river levels, minor flooding, and pollution events. The organisms harboured in a refuge are able to re-colonise the main river when the disturbance has passed.

Importance of Aquatic Refuges for heavily modified water bodies

Anthropogenic alterations to the flow regime and floodplain connectivity of lowland rivers have been observed to have detrimental impacts on fish populations (Bolland, 2008). The River Crane is a heavily modified water body with poor connectivity to its floodplain. In unmodified lowland rivers, floods are characterized by lateral expansion onto floodplains resulting in high levels of habitat heterogeneity, essential for fish refuge, spawning, nursery and feeding (Bolland, 2008).

Cowx & Gerdeaux (2004) suggested the necessity of recreating functional habitats for spawning, feeding, nursery(growth) and resting (self protection) on heavily modified river channels. Recreating these types of habitats involves softening levees and reconnecting secondary channels (backwaters) and isolated oxbows (Lusk et al., 2001, 2003). Such restoration efforts may only be necessary in limited reaches of a river corridor to maintain the biodiversity of a fishery (Cowx & Welcomme, 1998).

Aim of this project

This report aims to assess feasibility of creating aquatic refuge areas along the mid-Crane (between Crane Park and Cranford Park) in order to create functional habitats for coarse fish spawning, feeding, nursery and resting. Some sites may also have the potential for habitat enhancements for water voles and aquatic invertebrates. Sites are ordered via location, downstream to upstream.

References:

Bolland, J.D. (2008). Factors affecting the dispersal of coarse fish. Thesis submitted for the degree of doctor of philosophy. The University of Hull. Cowx, I.G. & Gerdeaux, D. (2004). The effects of fisheries management practices on freshwater ecosystems, Fisheries Management and Ecology 11, 145-152. Cowx, I.G. & Welcome, R.L. (1998). Rehabilitation of Rivers for Fish. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, 260 pp. Lusk, S., Halacka, K. & Luskova, V. (2003) Rehabilitation the floodplain of the lower River Dyje for fish. River Reseach and Applications. 19, 281-288 Lusk, S., Halacka, K. & Luskova, V. & Horak, V. (2001). Annual dynamics of the fish stock in a backwater of the River Dyje. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17, 571-581.

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 Crane (including part of the Yeading Brook)
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 5151 m <br />0.051 km <br />5,100 cm <br />
Dominant geology Calcareous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Suburban
Waterbody ID GB106039023030



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Big Yellow, Crane Park, Cranford Park Phase 2, Hospital Bridge Road, Mill Road Weir, Re-connecting Meanders at Cranebank on the River Crane


Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB106039023030
WFD (national) typology Calcareous
WFD water body name Crane
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
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 Urban
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 2014/01/01
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
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology Fish
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern Creation of fish refuge areas, Introduction of spawning gravels, Habitat restoration
Other
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
http://http://homepage.ntlworld.com/borsuk/force/FORCEhome.html Friends Of the River Crane Environment
http://http://cranevalley.org.uk/ Crane Valley Partnership

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information