Case study:Gadebridge park river restoration: Difference between revisions
KStandbrook (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
KStandbrook (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=Complete | |Status=Complete | ||
|Project web site url=https:// | |Project web site url=https://www.colnecan.org.uk/index.php/the-action-plans/rivers-gade-and-bulbourne/rivers-gade-and-bulbourne-projects/302-channel-restoration-gadebridge-park | ||
|Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Urban | |Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Urban | ||
|Country=England | |Country=England | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|Partner organisations=Affinity Water, Dacorum Borough Council | |Partner organisations=Affinity Water, Dacorum Borough Council | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project picture= | |Project picture=Photo 1.JPG | ||
|Picture description=Drone footage of new channel and central footbridge. | |||
|Project summary=The River Gade, a globally rare chalk stream with poor ecological status within Gadebridge park, used to flow down a ‘perched’ channel created to supply water to Bury Mill. It was disconnected from its floodplain and over widened, leading to sluggish flows and a build-up of silt and vegetation. The EA Gauging Station Bury Mill and other in-channel structures acted as barriers to fish movement. Being disconnected from groundwater and spring flow had a significant impact on low flow resilience and to wildlife. Partnered with Dacorum Borough Council and Affinity Water Limited, this Environment Agency lead project diverted 415 metres of river channel to the valley bottom through the park. The Bury Mill gauging station was replaced with an ultrasonic one to allow fish passage. Work progressed from 2018 with construction complete in June 2025. | |Project summary=The River Gade, a globally rare chalk stream with poor ecological status within Gadebridge park, used to flow down a ‘perched’ channel created to supply water to Bury Mill. It was disconnected from its floodplain and over widened, leading to sluggish flows and a build-up of silt and vegetation. The EA Gauging Station Bury Mill and other in-channel structures acted as barriers to fish movement. Being disconnected from groundwater and spring flow had a significant impact on low flow resilience and to wildlife. Partnered with Dacorum Borough Council and Affinity Water Limited, this Environment Agency lead project diverted 415 metres of river channel to the valley bottom through the park. The Bury Mill gauging station was replaced with an ultrasonic one to allow fish passage. Work progressed from 2018 with construction complete in June 2025. | ||
0.85 hectares of habitat was created, 3.9 hectares habitat enhanced | With the inclusion of spring water flow, which was previously piped beneath the park and discharged at Kings Langley 5 Kilometres downstream, 6.5 kilometres of river has been improved. 0.85 hectares of habitat was created, 3.9 hectares habitat enhanced, 0.9 hectares buffer strip created and 1.1km water body opened to fish passage. The river corridor now provides better resilience to low and high flows and the impacts of climate change. Two new bridges and a large gravel access point to the channel were provided for the local community. | ||
The project was designed by JBA Consulting Limited and delivered by BAM Nuttall Limited. | The project was designed by JBA Consulting Limited and delivered by BAM Nuttall Limited. | ||
|Monitoring surveys and results=Macrophyte survey- August 2025: | |Monitoring surveys and results=Baseline surveys undertaken for the project site pre-works: | ||
Macrophytes- dominated by marginal reeds and herbs, which choked much of the channel and the number of scoring taxa is very low. First record of water crowfoot at this site in 2024, but at cover value of 2 (1%). First record of lesser water-parsnip present at this site in 2024, but at cover value 1 (0.1%). INNS (Orange balsam) was recorded here in past surveys (2016 - 2023) at low cover, but not recorded in 2024. Suspected issues at this site could be turbidity, siltation/slow flow and poaching as the site is located in the park and popular for building temporary dams and children splashing in a summer. There were a limited number of Macrophytes species and a very homogenous community in the mill channel. | |||
Hyporheic zone- There were no specialist groundwater/hyporheic fauna recorded in any of the samples. | |||
Water quality- the water quality was both stable and at a high level across the two sites. There was little evidence of any pollution inputs impacting this stretch of the Gade and the low turbidity levels also show that there was minimal siltation / sedimentation issues. | |||
River fly- Improvements are possible with restoration, aiming to increase abundances of caseless caddisflies, mayflies, and stoneflies. | |||
Invertebrates- Scored as Good status in 2017 and High status in 2018, 19, 21, 22 & 23. | |||
Fish- in the 2021 survey we were suffering low flows. The highly modified old channel had no resilience in such conditions and offered very little habitat for fish during those flows. We confirmed this, as we recorded trout on a survey in 2022 further upstream, where restoration work had been carried out previously. | |||
We have completed two water vole surveys a year since 2021 as they have been recorded both upstream and downstream of the park. We utilised camera traps and rafts from November 2023 and through 2024 and removed scrub/saplings to prevent the area from becoming overgrown and limiting water vole foraging opportunities. There had been no sightings of water vole for two years prior to construction. | |||
Post construction surveys: | |||
Macrophyte survey- August 2025: | |||
New species: | New species: | ||
*Persicaria maculosa (Redshank) | *Persicaria maculosa (Redshank) | ||
| Line 37: | Line 56: | ||
In a fisheries survey in September 2025, we recorded high numbers of minnow, and similar counts for stickleback and bullhead. Most significantly we recorded 14 trout in the ~100m section, with a few different age classes represented. We also undertook a detailed habitat survey to help assess how the habitat will change in the coming years. | In a fisheries survey in September 2025, we recorded high numbers of minnow, and similar counts for stickleback and bullhead. Most significantly we recorded 14 trout in the ~100m section, with a few different age classes represented. We also undertook a detailed habitat survey to help assess how the habitat will change in the coming years. | ||
Summary of improvement- | Summary of improvement- Our work within the park restored a more varied range of habitats that could be used across more flows. | ||
Our 2025 post works survey showed a significant increase in numbers of "minor" species, all of which are prey items for trout. Their increased abundance is a great sign of river health and will support trout numbers in the park. Habitat requirements change as trout are in different life stages. The trout we recorded were from a few different age classes, from juveniles to adults. This shows that even in a 100m section there is enough variety in habitat to support a population of trout. | Our 2025 post works survey showed a significant increase in numbers of "minor" species, all of which are prey items for trout. Their increased abundance is a great sign of river health and will support trout numbers in the park. Habitat requirements change as trout are in different life stages. The trout we recorded were from a few different age classes, from juveniles to adults. This shows that even in a 100m section there is enough variety in habitat to support a population of trout. | ||
| Line 44: | Line 63: | ||
A Kingfisher and 3 Grey Wagtail have also been spotted on site since the restoration was completed. | A Kingfisher and 3 Grey Wagtail have also been spotted on site since the restoration was completed. | ||
Surveys are ongoing, including water vole, riverfly, hyporheic, flow, temperature, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish. | |||
|Lessons learn=*Factor in a good contingency for the project, thinking about the contractors available on the framework, increases in material costs, inflation, FTE charges, compensation events. Have a good understanding of any changes to the design, working with the designer to estimate cost increases. | |Lessons learn=*Factor in a good contingency for the project, thinking about the contractors available on the framework, increases in material costs, inflation, FTE charges, compensation events. Have a good understanding of any changes to the design, working with the designer to estimate cost increases. | ||
*The project group should contain members of the required level of authority. Set accountabilities early to avoid delays and misunderstanding plus each team's minimum requirements. Technical team leads should have ownership of their elements of the project to ensure all discussion items are logged and addressed. | *The project group should contain members of the required level of authority. Set accountabilities early to avoid delays and misunderstanding plus each team's minimum requirements. Technical team leads should have ownership of their elements of the project to ensure all discussion items are logged and addressed. | ||
| Line 74: | Line 95: | ||
|WFD water body name=Gade (Upper stretch Great Gaddesden to confluence with Bulbourne / GUC) | |WFD water body name=Gade (Upper stretch Great Gaddesden to confluence with Bulbourne / GUC) | ||
|Pre-project morphology=Impounded, Over deepened, Over-widened, Single channel, Straightened | |Pre-project morphology=Impounded, Over deepened, Over-widened, Single channel, Straightened | ||
|Desired post project morphology= | |Desired post project morphology=Pool-riffle | ||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |Heavily modified water body=No | ||
|Protected species present=Yes | |Protected species present=Yes | ||
| Line 98: | Line 119: | ||
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=Kelly | |Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=Kelly | ||
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Standbrook | |Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Standbrook | ||
|Works1 and supervision cost category=more than 10000 k€ | |||
|Works and supervision Lead organisation=BAM Nuttall Limited | |Works and supervision Lead organisation=BAM Nuttall Limited | ||
|Works and supervision Other contact forename=David | |Works and supervision Other contact forename=David | ||
| Line 108: | Line 130: | ||
|Monitoring Other contact surname=Standbrook | |Monitoring Other contact surname=Standbrook | ||
|Supplementary funding information=Total project cost: £4.148 million. EA FCERM £2.268 million, EA Water Resources £1.510 million. Affinity Water £250k. Dacorum Borough Council £120k. | |Supplementary funding information=Total project cost: £4.148 million. EA FCERM £2.268 million, EA Water Resources £1.510 million. Affinity Water £250k. Dacorum Borough Council £120k. | ||
Five Rivers were subcontracted by BAM to undertake the ecological elements of the works- placement of gravels, planting etc. | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration | |Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration | ||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Freshwater flow regime, Width & depth variation | |Hydromorphological quality elements=Connection to groundwaters, Flow velocities, Freshwater flow regime, Substrate conditions, Width & depth variation | ||
|Biological quality elements=Fish, Fish: Abundance, Macrophytes and/or phytobenthos: Average abundance | |Biological quality elements=Fish, Fish: Abundance, Fish: Species composition, Macrophytes and/or phytobenthos: Average abundance | ||
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Oxygen balance, Temperature | |Physico-chemical quality elements=Oxygen balance, Temperature | ||
|Other motivation= | |Other motivation=Climate change resilience | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures | ||
| Line 145: | Line 168: | ||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Biological quality elements header}} | {{Biological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Fish | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Invertebrates | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macrophytes | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Oxygen balance | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=PH | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Temperature | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Other responses header}} | {{Other responses header}} | ||
{{Other response table row | |||
|Element=River Habitat Survey | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Other response table row | |||
|Element=Water vole survey | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Other response table row | |||
|Element=Public opinion | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Other response table row | |||
|Element=river bank vegetation | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Monitoring documents}} | {{Monitoring documents}} | ||
| Line 158: | Line 271: | ||
|Link=https://www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/all-news/2025/08/06/river-gade-restoration-in-gadebridge-park-nears-final-phase | |Link=https://www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/all-news/2025/08/06/river-gade-restoration-in-gadebridge-park-nears-final-phase | ||
|Description=Dacorum borough council | |Description=Dacorum borough council | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Additional links and references | {{Additional links and references | ||
| Line 174: | Line 283: | ||
|Link=https://www.affinitywater.co.uk/sustainability/restoration/river-gade | |Link=https://www.affinitywater.co.uk/sustainability/restoration/river-gade | ||
|Description=affinity water | |Description=affinity water | ||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=https://youtu.be/i_3Bk_3GLRM?si=QpmLhoKKYtJQAd5B | |||
|Description=Introductory video | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Additional links and references footer}} | {{Additional links and references footer}} | ||
{{Supplementary Information}} | {{Supplementary Information}} | ||
{{Toggle content end}} | {{Toggle content end}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:03, 22 January 2026
Project overview
| Status | Complete |
|---|---|
| Project web site | http://https://www.colnecan.org.uk/index.php/the-action-plans/rivers-gade-and-bulbourne/rivers-gade-and-bulbourne-projects/302-channel-restoration-gadebridge-park |
| Themes | Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Urban |
| Country | England |
| Main contact forename | Kelly |
| Main contact surname | Standbrook |
| Main contact user ID | |
| Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
| Contact organisation web site | http://https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency |
| Partner organisations | Affinity Water, Dacorum Borough Council |
| Parent multi-site project | |
| This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The River Gade, a globally rare chalk stream with poor ecological status within Gadebridge park, used to flow down a ‘perched’ channel created to supply water to Bury Mill. It was disconnected from its floodplain and over widened, leading to sluggish flows and a build-up of silt and vegetation. The EA Gauging Station Bury Mill and other in-channel structures acted as barriers to fish movement. Being disconnected from groundwater and spring flow had a significant impact on low flow resilience and to wildlife. Partnered with Dacorum Borough Council and Affinity Water Limited, this Environment Agency lead project diverted 415 metres of river channel to the valley bottom through the park. The Bury Mill gauging station was replaced with an ultrasonic one to allow fish passage. Work progressed from 2018 with construction complete in June 2025.
With the inclusion of spring water flow, which was previously piped beneath the park and discharged at Kings Langley 5 Kilometres downstream, 6.5 kilometres of river has been improved. 0.85 hectares of habitat was created, 3.9 hectares habitat enhanced, 0.9 hectares buffer strip created and 1.1km water body opened to fish passage. The river corridor now provides better resilience to low and high flows and the impacts of climate change. Two new bridges and a large gravel access point to the channel were provided for the local community.
The project was designed by JBA Consulting Limited and delivered by BAM Nuttall Limited.
Monitoring surveys and results
Baseline surveys undertaken for the project site pre-works:
Macrophytes- dominated by marginal reeds and herbs, which choked much of the channel and the number of scoring taxa is very low. First record of water crowfoot at this site in 2024, but at cover value of 2 (1%). First record of lesser water-parsnip present at this site in 2024, but at cover value 1 (0.1%). INNS (Orange balsam) was recorded here in past surveys (2016 - 2023) at low cover, but not recorded in 2024. Suspected issues at this site could be turbidity, siltation/slow flow and poaching as the site is located in the park and popular for building temporary dams and children splashing in a summer. There were a limited number of Macrophytes species and a very homogenous community in the mill channel.
Hyporheic zone- There were no specialist groundwater/hyporheic fauna recorded in any of the samples.
Water quality- the water quality was both stable and at a high level across the two sites. There was little evidence of any pollution inputs impacting this stretch of the Gade and the low turbidity levels also show that there was minimal siltation / sedimentation issues.
River fly- Improvements are possible with restoration, aiming to increase abundances of caseless caddisflies, mayflies, and stoneflies.
Invertebrates- Scored as Good status in 2017 and High status in 2018, 19, 21, 22 & 23.
Fish- in the 2021 survey we were suffering low flows. The highly modified old channel had no resilience in such conditions and offered very little habitat for fish during those flows. We confirmed this, as we recorded trout on a survey in 2022 further upstream, where restoration work had been carried out previously.
We have completed two water vole surveys a year since 2021 as they have been recorded both upstream and downstream of the park. We utilised camera traps and rafts from November 2023 and through 2024 and removed scrub/saplings to prevent the area from becoming overgrown and limiting water vole foraging opportunities. There had been no sightings of water vole for two years prior to construction.
Post construction surveys:
Macrophyte survey- August 2025: New species:
- Persicaria maculosa (Redshank)
- Callitriche obtusangula (Blunt fruited water starwort)
- Sparganium erectum (Branched bur-reed)
- Lemna minor (Duckweed)
- The total number of species has increased from 18 to 24 new ones
Increase in cover:
- Ranunculus penicillatus subsp. Pseudofluitans (Brook watercrowfoot)
- Veronica anagallis-aquatica (Water speedwell)
Fisheries: In a fisheries survey in September 2025, we recorded high numbers of minnow, and similar counts for stickleback and bullhead. Most significantly we recorded 14 trout in the ~100m section, with a few different age classes represented. We also undertook a detailed habitat survey to help assess how the habitat will change in the coming years.
Summary of improvement- Our work within the park restored a more varied range of habitats that could be used across more flows.
Our 2025 post works survey showed a significant increase in numbers of "minor" species, all of which are prey items for trout. Their increased abundance is a great sign of river health and will support trout numbers in the park. Habitat requirements change as trout are in different life stages. The trout we recorded were from a few different age classes, from juveniles to adults. This shows that even in a 100m section there is enough variety in habitat to support a population of trout.
BNG has increased by 10% from 26.8 units to 29.53 units
A Kingfisher and 3 Grey Wagtail have also been spotted on site since the restoration was completed.
Surveys are ongoing, including water vole, riverfly, hyporheic, flow, temperature, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish.
Lessons learnt
- Factor in a good contingency for the project, thinking about the contractors available on the framework, increases in material costs, inflation, FTE charges, compensation events. Have a good understanding of any changes to the design, working with the designer to estimate cost increases.
- The project group should contain members of the required level of authority. Set accountabilities early to avoid delays and misunderstanding plus each team's minimum requirements. Technical team leads should have ownership of their elements of the project to ensure all discussion items are logged and addressed.
- Make sure all staff have the training and capabilities to conduct their role within the project team and they have available resource.
- Develop a robust benefits realisation strategy early on to enable a better understanding of the benefits to all parties and a greater financial contribution.
- Walk the line of works with the Topography Plan and Tree Survey before commencing works at site, to check for mapping discrepancies.
- Ensure a close working relationship with the designer and the technical teams to avoid delays.
- Engage with the local community in a variety of ways eg. project web page, mailing list updates, project mailbox, Facebook, Twitter, council newsletters, onsite signage, community events.
Image gallery
|
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Supplementary funding informationTotal project cost: £4.148 million. EA FCERM £2.268 million, EA Water Resources £1.510 million. Affinity Water £250k. Dacorum Borough Council £120k. Five Rivers were subcontracted by BAM to undertake the ecological elements of the works- placement of gravels, planting etc.
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
