1. Words: 2,421 724465
1
A proposed scheme for the enhancement of the Blackwater cross
over of the River Medina, Isle of Wight
Introduction
Riverrehabilitationandrestorationisa relativelynew conceptandprocedure,havingemergedfrom
the sustainable developmentparadigm(Wheaton,DarbyandSear,n.dcitedinDarbyandSear,2008).
In recent years, river restoration has been given another, new impetus through the EuropeanUnion
Water Framework Direction (EU WFD) and national government targets for both water quality and
biodiversity conservation (Biodiversity ActionPlans (BAPs) (iwight.com, 2003). Restoration schemes,
focused on ecology (Shields Jr, Copeland et al, 2003; Pretty, Harrison et al, 2003), are increasingly
incorporatinginmore boarder requirements suchasrecreationand accessibility(Woolsey,Capelli et
al,2007). One of the firsttobe carriedoutinthe UKwasthe restorationof the RiversSkerneandCole,
Swindon(AbergandTapsell,n.d.citedinBoonand Raven,2012). Thisscheme has beensuccessfulin
improving access to the river and geomorphological processes despite increasingsediment load and
phosphorousduringconstruction(Kronvang,Svendsen etal,1998). Yetitwasconsidered unsuccessful
in improving biodiversity (Biggs, Corfield et al, 1998) which Palmer, Bernhardt et al (2005) suggest
restoration isn’t always ecologically successful.
A varietyof differentapproacheshave beenadaptedtoenhance orto rehabilitate ariver,depending
on the level of instabilityinthe river (Downsand Gregory,2004; Knighton,1998). These approaches
range from wholescale morphological reconstruction used at sites such as Ewan Water (Gilvear and
Bradley,1997), the Skerne andCole (Biggs,Corfield etal,1998), DeepandWhitemarshRun,Maryland
(Soar and Thorne, 2001; Smith and Prestegaard, 2005) to more subtle changes including low flow
sinuosity (The Medina,Shide tributary (Hector,2013),ripariancorridors (Larsenn.dcitedinPettsand
Calow, 1996) and artificial step-pools/riffle-pool sequences (Knighton, 1998; Downs and Gregory,
2004). All these measures have beenproven tohave varyingdegreesof success (Palmer,Bernhard et
al, 2005; Radspinner, Diplas,Lightbodyand Sotiropoulos, 2010). Towards the future, the fate of the
UK’s riversand commitmentsto the EU WFD are uncertaingiventhe BREXITreferendum.Thisreport
will discuss a proposed scheme for the enhancement of the Blackwater crossing of the Medina.
Aims and objectives
Aim
 To enhance the aesthicsof the Medinacross overat Blackwatertoimprove local habitatand
geomorphological diversity.
Objectives
1. To ‘soften’ the appearance of pre-existing concrete structures at the cross-over to blend it
into the landscape.
2. To reactive the old channel course to provide a backwater shelter for fish.
3. To improve bed diversity by introducing riffles.
4. To reduce the channel’swide throughreplantingbanksidevegetation toencourage low flow
sinuosity and increase habitat diversity.
Study site
The RiverMedinaisthe onlyriverinthe UKwhichflowsdirectlynorth, fromitssource atChale before
thenflowingdirectlynorth (Hector,2013) to Coweswhere itdischargesintothe Solent(figures1and
2). Its total length is 17 km, draining a 17 km2
catchment. It passes through two major towns in the

2. Words: 2,421 724465
2
centre of the island – Blackwaterand Newport.Historically,the riverhasbeenmodifiedsignificantly.
First by the Victorians who constructed a railway which ran directly between Newport and St
Catherine’sPoint,SouthDowns.More recently,however,thisrailwayhasbeenremovedand during
the 1960s it was channelised and straightened further to create a flood alleviation scheme. As the
riverflowstowardsthe sea,fromNewporttoCowesandtheSolent,itisanenclosedestuary consisting
of industry, a navigable channel, and a large inland harbour (Islandrivers.org, 2015).
Since 2011, the river has undergone restoration and enhancement works with a view of improving
ecological diversity, becausethe riveris home tomigratoryBrown(Sea) troutandEuropeanEels.The
scheme was awarded £90,000 from the Sita Trust and carried out by the Newport Rivers Group,
Natural Enterprise andthe Island2000 Trustand EnvironmentAgency,toimproveecologicaldiversity
for the fish species (Hector, 2013). Divided into three phases,the scheme implemented a variety of
differentin-streammeasuresrangingfromplantedberms (figure3), artificialislands andriffles(figure
4) to removing bankside trees to ‘lighten’ the ambiance of the river (Hector, 2013).
Figure 1: overview of the river medina as it passes through Newport to the estuary at Cowes. Image taken from Google
Maps, accessed 11.12.2016, retrieved from https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Newport/@50.6900713,-
1.2940365,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x48746214000d10c5:0xb93bd2652373300a!8m2!3d50.700803!4d-
1.291633?hl=en&hl=en

3. Words: 2,421 724465
3
Figure 2: a zoomed in picture of the River Medina, stretching from Blackwater to Newport which is the study area. Images
taken from Google Maps, accessed 11.12.2016 retrieved from
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Newport/@50.6900713,-
1.2940365,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x48746214000d10c5:0xb93bd2652373300a!8m2!3d50.700803!4d-
1.291633?hl=en&hl=en
Figure 3: the Shide tributary following construction of vegetated berms.
Here is the Medina as it flows towards
Newport, from Blackwater. Notice how it
splits intotwo channels. At this point, the
Blackwater cross over, the railwayruns
directlythroughthe middle ofthe old
channelcourse.
At this point is the Shide tributary, a
concrete lined channel, subject to recent
work to enhance the geomorphic and
ecologicaldiversity. Also, to a lesser, extent
to ‘soften’ the aesthics of the river at this
point.

4. Words: 2,421 724465
4
Figure 4: riffle close to St George's Road bridge. This is one of a variety of different in-stream measures implemented during
the works.
Appraisal of existing measures implemented in the River Medina restoration
Whenthe scheme wasconstructed,avarietyof in-streamandbankside measureswere implemented
to improve the ambiance,ecology and‘naturalness’of the river.These include artificial riffles(figure
4), vegetative and log berms and large woody debris. These measures have had some successes
includingthe re-instatementof lowflow sinuosityand the re-creationof,amore ‘natural’lookingand
soundingriver. Butsome of the measuresimplementedhave eitherstartedtofail orfailedtorestore
longitudinal, ecological connectivity.
Figure 5 showsevidence thatsome in-streammeasuressuchas larch-spillingare beginningtofail.In
figure 5, youcan see the home ownerhas triedto re-enforce the failingbankline.Buchanan,Nagle,
and Walter(2013) suggestfailure alongthisbankline isrelatedtothe combinedeffectsof highshear
stress, associated with depth and velocity increases here. Thus, it may be suggested using willow
spillings,withoutbuildinginsomeformof geo-textiletosecurethe sediment hascontributedto failure
here.Anotherissue withthisscheme isthe absenceof fishpassagesandElverweirswhich have been
removedduringtheoriginal works(figure6). Lackof Elverpasses maymeanschemeisnotecologically
successful because it has failed to improve longitudinal habitat diversity and connectivity (Lepori,
Palm, Brannas and Malmqvist, 2005).
Similarly, an island installed, two years, has since disappeared. This island was envisaged, by the
designers,toact like aflowdeflectorandpromote scoureitherside of it.It failed,inpart,because of
highfloweventsanda lack of vegetation atthis site.Anotherpossible reasonitfailedwasthere was
notactive post-projectmonitoring,whichcouldhave otherwise avoidedthe completewashoutof the
island(Downsand Kondolf,2002). At other sites,suchas the Shide tributary have beensuccessful in
re-creating low flow sinuosity, despite the inability to retain artificially coarse bed material.

5. Words: 2,421 724465
5
Figure 5: site 3, upstream of St Georges Road Bridge crossing. This photo shows clear evidence of bank undermining, perhaps,
by high winter flows.
Figure 6: weir at site 2, St Georges Road Bridge. Towards the left-hand side, nearest the inner bank, there is a small notch.
Here was where a fish pass was once installed, now it has been removed. The black circle indicates where the former fish pass
once was.
Here the bankline is beginning to failure due to recent
high winter flows. Previouslythis had beenfilledwith
sediment to support riparianvegetationbut has since
been washedout. As youcansee, the home ownerhas
tried to sure the bank line up whichis likelyto continue
to fail without immediate structuralre-enforcement.

6. Words: 2,421 724465
6
Figure 7: The Shide tributary, river Medina, Shide. Here you can see evidence of low flow sinuosity structures, vegetated
meander bends. Towards the top of the image, you can see where there is a low-level weir-type structure which has been
introduced for the purposes of catching coarse bed material and introduced some flow diversity.
Velocitychanges at this
point, as the waterflows
over a rock weir. Also, the
flow up and till thispoint is
largelysteady, uniform.
To the left hand-side, cylix
(Willow)is startingto
colonise the bend. This,
however, was not planted.
Figure 8: Zoomed in image of the head of the right hand vegetated berm. This structure shows
evidence of scour, possibilityrelated to secondary circulation.
Zoomedinphotoof the right-
hand meander bend,looking
from the bridge. This close-up
shows evidence of scour at the
headof the bend.
Flow heading north

7. Words: 2,421 724465
7
Summary table of the current restoration measures in taken in the river Medina
Site along the
river
Measure taken Advantages Disadvantages
Site 1: River
Medina,
centre of
Newport
Vegetatedberms to restore
low flow sinuosityand
removal of a weir just
upstream.
Recreate low flow sinuosity,
reduce fine sediment load, and
improve water quality(ref).
Site 2:
upstream of
St Georges
Road Bridge
crossing
Re-vegetate the bank line to
improve habitat diversityand
reduce channel width.
Re-create lateral connectivity,
low flow sinuosityandimprove
habitat diversity.
Prone to failure as a result of
secondarycirculationandhigh,
bank full flows (Buchanan,
Nagle, andWalter, 2013).
Site 3: Shide
tributary
Vegetatedberms, bend way
weirs and artificialgravel.
Designedto create lowflow
sinuosityandslowthe flow
passingthroughthisreach.
Improvedaesthical value of the
concrete lined channel, mimics
natural bankside vegetation
and provides refugia for macro-
invertebrates
Scour at the headof the right
hand-side berm (figure 8).
Geotextile canbe stripped
from an area if vegetationhas
not beenimmediatelyplanted
following constructionof the
berm (Morris andMoses,
1999).
Site 4:
Blackwater
reach, above
Shide
Artificial riffle creation. Create low flow habitats
through ponding in the
upstream side of the riffle
(Downs andGregory, 2004). Re-
oxygenate a reachandrestore
geomorphic diversityand
improve the aesthics ofa river
(Pasternacket al, 2007).
Pasternacket al (2007) reveal
riffles are prone to failure
through “the “reverse
domino” mechanism” (p. 25),
wherebyincreases in the
downslope water surface
elevationincrease the shear
stress on the riffle’s crest.
Resulting in a cascade ofriffle
re-organisation.
Site 5:
Blackwater
cross over
Concrete berm with
vegetationplantedbehindit.
Log berms along the outer
bank of the meander bendto
protect the banktoe.
Instream grade control
structures to capture coarse
material (ref).
Log berms need to be selected
so that theydon’t move during
high flows andare often
designedto be longer thanthe
bankfullchannel width, insmall
streams (Kail, Hering et al,
2007)
Log berms canprovide little in
the wayof ecological and
morphological diversity, if they
are not designedto the
appropriate bankfull andflow
conditions (Kail, Hering et al,
2007)
Table 1: summary table of existing rehabilitation measures along the 2-km target reach of the river Medina.
Design procedure
There is scope for further improvement in this reach, despite it being heavy concreted and situated
close to a piece of highvalue infrastructure,afootbridge.Thisscheme sets outtouse a combination
of the existing structures and introduce new ones as well.
For example, around the meander bend, figure 10, there is scope for re-introducing vegetation
provideditisproperlyprotectedandsecured.Similarly,pre-existinggrade control structurescouldbe
removedandreplacedwithmeanderbendwaybermstoincrease the hydraulicroughness.Although
this may compromise the concrete walls. As the river joins the main channel, two or three artificial
riffles could be introduced to create habitat diversity and improve the aesthical value of this reach.
Aside from this, figures 13, 14 and 15 and Table 2 provides more detailed breakdowns of these
measures.

8. Words: 2,421 724465
8
Summary table of the proposed measures to enhance the Blackwater cross-over
Measures to
be
implemented
Design
considerations
Merits Potential problems
Reed beds
and wall
coverings
Need to withstand high
shear stresses and flow
velocities withinthe
meander bend.
Improvedaesthical value, low
velocityhabitat andsediment
trapping(Osbourne and
Kovacic, 1993). Help to
recreate a low flow,
meandering thalweg (Downs
and Gregory, 2004). Coir
matting has beenshown to be
effective at both retaining and
capturingfine sediment,
further helpingvegetationto
establish(Vishnudas, Savenije
et al, 2006) and are cost-
effective, typicallycosting less
than £1 per metre square.
Washed out at highdischarges,
scouredbysecondarycirculation. The
success ofthis measure is also
dependent uponthe abilityof other
plant speciesto colonise the berms,
particularly, ifthe neighbouring banks
contain a viable seedbank (Rohde,
Schutz, Kienast and Englmaier, 2005).
Rominger, Lightbody et al (2010)
reveal vegetation candisplace the
secondarycirculationcelltowards the
outer bank, herebyincreasingscour
towards the pool andouter, cut bank
and enhancederosionof the point bar
tip.
Artificial
Riffles
Materialto be designed
to with-standflows with
a return interval of 100-
years (Chin, Gelwicket al,
2010). Velocityover riffle
crest should40 cm/s
with a maximum depth
of 25 cm, for it to
behaviour like a natural
riffle at low flow stages.
Sediment mayneedto
be designedto suit the
local ecologyandto
prevent vertical
winnowing, if fine
sediment is introducedto
the river from upstream
(Downs andGregory,
2004).
Known to improve local,
macro-invertebrate diversity
as well as fish spawning
grounds (Ebrahimnezhadand
Harper, 1997;Chin, Gelwick et
al, 2010). Hydrological
diversityis alsoimproved as
well (BrownandPasternack,
2008).
Can fail throughthe “‘reverse domino
mechanism’” resultinginre-
organisationof the riffle sequence
(Pasternacket al, 2007, p. 25). Also,
theycan be prone to armouringand
winnowing offine sediments, during
medium to highflows, leadingto a
degradationof spawning ground
(Pasternacket al, 2007).
Restoring
lateral
connectivity
Slows downthe overall
flow velocityandallows
over-bankfloodingto
occurring during high
flow stages.
Floodplainscallops provide
“breedingand/or stepping
stones” (Chovanec, Straif et
al, 2005, p. 220) for migratory
and resident species. Creation
fo artificial side-channelshave
been shown to cansupport
manyfishfrom different
species(Morley, Garcia et al,
2005).
Full lateral connectivitymaynot be
attainable at thissite because of the
footpath runningthroughthe middle
of the river. If it is not designed
properlythen it canbecome overly
wide due to bank erosionandflow
velocitycan increase (Eder andMestl,
2012), defeating the objective of
creating a backwater habitat.
Table 2: summary table of the enhancement measures to be implemented in the Blackwater cross-over.
Discussion of the proposed re-imaging the Blackwater cross-over
Byreviewingboththe siteandthe literature,three differentmeasureshavebeenidentified,eachwith
their own merits and problems.
1. Reed bank construction:
Replanting riparianvegetation either by using reeds or resulting Willow (Salix type) has been shown
to improve water quality, visual aesthetics, and geomorphic diversity of the bed (e.g. Downs and
Gregory,2004; Moses,and Morris, 2005; Francis and Hoggart, 2016.) Although,itmust be used with

9. Words: 2,421 724465
9
cautionto avoid enhancederosionof the cutbank (Rominger,LightbodyandNepf,2010) or washout
at high flows which influences the ability of neighbouring vegetation to colonise the berm (Rohde,
Schutz,KienastandEnglmaier,2005).For themto be mosteffective,itisrecommendedthattheyare
both be scaled to half to a third of the channel width to avoid full closure of the channel – and coir
geotextile has been shown to be the best way of securing the subtract, allowing the vegetation to
colonise it(Vishnudas,Savenije etal,2006). Fromanecologicalpointof view, Chin,Gelwick etal(2010)
implyincreasedfaunal plantcoverage,reducedcross-sectional areaandvelocity,associatedwithre-
vegetation, improves macro-invertebrate diversity, a scenario greatly enhanced by the geomorphic
changes associated with replanting of vegetation (Kail, Hering et al, 2007).
Rominger, Lightbody and Nepf (2010) highlight a significant problem with using vegetated berms in
meander berm ways. They argue vegetation can initiate a positive feedback system associatedwith
displacementof thehelicalflowontothe outer,cutbank whilstthe vegetationcapturesfinesediment.
Eventuallycuttingoff sedimentsupplyfromthe channel tothe bar. Consequently, itcancreate a new
problem associated with bank erosion and scour of the point bar tail. Francis and Hoggart (2016)
exemplify using vegetationfeatures,besides reed beds, not only improve habitat and geomorphic
diversity but also can be used to soften the aesthetics of concrete-lined, urban channels such as
Deptford Creek.
Figure 9: proposed site for the installation of artificial riffles and reed beds at the Blackwater cross-over.
Kenwick, ShamminandSullivan(2009) disclose 80% and 89% of urbanplannersindicatedtheywould
include tree buffers into existing and proposed urban areas. Shammin and Sullivan (2009) evidence
reflectswhyitmaybe importanttore-instate vegetationalongthisreachhasbeen showntocreate a
more ‘naturalised’appearance.Despitestrongsupportforripariantree planting,plantingtreesinthe
immediate vicinity of the channel is not practical because of the potential risk of structural
undermining by tree roots.
2. Artificial riffles:
Use of artificial riffles has produced mixed ecological and geomorphic changes (Ebrahimnezhadand
Harper,1997), evidentintheirstudyof Harper’sbrook,Northamptonshire.This,theyreveal,isrelated

10. Words: 2,421 724465
10
to constructionof the riffle chieflythe heightof the crest,flow velocityandpool depth. It shouldbe,
therefore,notedthe rifflesplannedforthisscheme,needtobe designedbankfull conditionsandthe
substrate should be designed to withstand a 100-year flood event (Chin, Gelwick et al, 2010).
Although, artificial riffles don’t always lead to significant changes in geomorphic activity. Thompson
(2002) pointsoutthatlow-flowdeflectorsandartificialrifflescanattainasustainableminimumdepth
but oftencreate shallowerpoolsthanthose associatedwithnatural features.Consequently,low flow
habitat is poor in quality and quantity.
Pasternack,BounrisavongandParikh(n.d,inpress) highlightanotherpotentialproblemwithartificial
riffleswhichisfailurethroughthe “reversedominomechanism”(p.25) associatedwithchangesinthe
downstream water surface elevation (WSE). The net result is a wave of high velocity flow, passing
upstream which destabilises one riffles and eventuallytriggers a systematic collapse. This is likelyto
be eithercausedby the at-a-stationhydraulicgeometrywhichinducesachange in flow hydraulicsor
through structural failure in any riffle (Maytas, Korpak and Maczalowski, 2015).
3. Reconnecting the existing channel to its old course:
Reconnecting secondary to main channels has been shown to have had some mixed results (e.g.
Coops, Tockner et al, n.d cited in Verhoeven,Beltman, Bobbink and Whigham (eds), 2002; Buijse,
Coops et al, 2002; Lyon, Stuart, Ramsey and O’Mahony, 2010). Lyon, Stuart, Ramsey and O’Mahony
(2010) suggest reconnecting primary to secondary channels is integral to either sustaining or
rejuvenatingfloodplainecosystems.Theypointoutsecondarychannelsproviderefugianotonlyfrom
either flood flows or fast water velocitiesbut also opportunitiesto shelter from changes in water
temperature in the main river. It can, therefore, be argued reconnecting the old channel course,
figures 10 and 11, is an appropriate measure to helpfurther enhance the ‘naturalness’ of the cross-
over by providing a refugia for either young fish or species which require low-velocity spawning
habitats.
Despite the ecological potential of reconnecting primarytosecondarychannels(Lyon,Stuart,Ramsey
andO’Mahony,2010), there are problemsassociatedwiththismeasure. SchroppandJans(2000) who
studied the Dutch Rhine (River Waal) found artificial secondary channels were susceptible to
sedimentation, depending upon local conditions. They reported there are a variety of measures to
preventsedimentationfromoccurring includingbottomvanesplacednear the entire to the channel
to trap migrating bedload waves or installing an upstream sediment trap. Installing an upstream
sedimenttrapmaynotbe practical giventhe channel isverynarrow,butamodifiedandcarefullysited
bottom vane may help prevent aggradation through bedloadmigration. Geerling, Kater et al (2008)
who also studied the River Waal discovered over-bank flows lead to aggradation which allowed
vegetation colonisationand natural levee formation. The implication of this is a decrease in flood
retention capacity within the catchment and a decrease in mean-flow velocities. To avoid this,
coppicingmaywell helptosuppress the successionof floodplainvegetationintostructure-richforest.

11. Words: 2,421 724465
11
Figure 10: contemporary Medina at Blackwater cross-over. Image taken from Edina Digimap, retrieved from
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/historic, accessed December 2016
Aside fromsome of the problemsassociatedwithreconnectingside channels, EderandMestl (2012)
disclose a side channel in the Upper Hamburg Bend, Missouri River, is largely stable. But has
undergone some modifications associated with high flows. They found aggradation is beginning in
some areas of the channel leading to a loss of low flow and shallow habitats, driven by a lack of
frequent high flow events. Instead it has gradually been modified by high and low flows leading to
depth and velocity changes. Consequently, completely re-opening the channel may make it more
susceptibleto over-wideningandvelocitychanges. Inview of EderandMestl (2012) experiences,pre-
existing concrete bank line should be maintained on one side to provide some structural support.
Seen here, in this image, is the now
divertedMedina. It hastwo very
narrow channelsrunning parallel to
the footpath. Reconnecting one or
both channels is likelyto have some
ecologicaland geomorphic benefit
in this scheme. Although care must
be taken to ensure highflow events
don’t erode the banklinesand
damage the footpath.
To avoidthis, leavingone ofthe
existingconcrete channel wallsin
place mayprovide further structural
support. Whilst maintaining some of
the existingtree coverage may
furtherprovide bankside stability.

12. Words: 2,421 724465
12
Figure 11: The River Medina at the Blackwater Cross-over during the 1970s. Image retrieved from Edina Digimap,
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/historic, accessed December 2016
Figure 12: The old course of the River Medina which is to be re-connected to create a backwater, low-flow habitat.
Future directions: where do we go from here?
1. Following the announcement, during 2016, that Britain is to leave the European Union (EU)
this may complicate restorationwork in the Medina and elsewhere. It may mean we are no
longerobligedtofollowingthe EU WFD’s guidance onwaterand ecological quality. Although

13. Words: 2,421 724465
13
thismayonlyoccur,if amore hawkess,conservativegovernmentiselected. Itmaymeanthere
is less funding made available to carry out such projects.
2. The past failingsof thisandotherprojectshave providedauseful insightintowhatworksand
doesn’tworkintermsof rehabilitation.Since there seemstobe consensusfromthe literature,
there is no ‘one-size or type-fits-all’ response to river restoration. Instead, past uses and
modifications to a river and its ecological value. Once these measures have been
implemented,carrymonitoringandappraisal overacourse of several yearsisrecommended.
But this is likely to be determinedby the availability of people to carry out such monitoring,
for example (Tunstall, Penning-Rowsell,Tapsell and Eden,2000). Typically, monitoringcould
be carriedoutat 6 monthstoa year(post-completion) then2-3yearsthen5to 10 yearsafter.
Thisisdesignednotonlytoassess the effectivenessof the scheme butalso toassess whether
there hasbeenanysignificantlossesorgainsintermsof geomorphicandecological diversity.
Conclusions
 The scheme setsouttouse acombinationof reedbeds,sidechannel connectivityandartificial
riffles to restore geomorphic and ecological processes to improve the aesthics and
‘naturalness’ of this reach.
 Several potential problems and merits have been identified, from the literature, including
sedimentation,vegetation successionandriffle collapse whichcouldpresentnew challenges
at this site.
 Considering these problems, the combined measures are considered appropriate to use to
restore and enhance geomorphic and ecological value of the cross-over.
 Once these measureshave beenimplemented,monitoringandpost-projectappraisal willbe
useful to assess the success of these measures and inform any future schemes.
Reference list
AbergE U and Tapsell S.(n.d.) Rehabilitationof the RiverSkerne and the RiverCole,England:A long
term perspective. In. Boon P J and Raven P J (eds). (2012). River Conservation and
Management. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester.
Biggs J, CorfieldA,Gron P, Hansen H O, WalkerD, WhitefieldM,and WilliamsP.(1998). Restoration
of the riversBrede,Cole,andSkerne:ajointDanishandBritishEU-LIFEdemonstrationproject,
V – short term impacts on the conservation value of aquatic macroinvertebrates and
macrophyte assemblages. Aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems,volume
8, pp. 241-255.
Buchanan B P, Nagle G N,and Walter T M. (2013). Long termmonitoringandassessmentof astream
restorationprojectincentral New York. River research and applications,volume 263, issue 9,
DOI: 10.1002/rra.2639.
Buijse A D, Coops H, Staras M, Hans L H, Van Geest G J, Grifts R E, Idelings B W, Oosterberg W, and
RoozenF C J M. (2002). Restorationstrategiesforriverfloodplainsalonglarge lowlandrivers
in Europe. Freshwater Biology, volume 47, pp. 889-907.
Chovanec A, Straif M, Waidbacher H, Schiemer F, Cabela A, and Raad R. (2005). Rehabilitation of an
impounded sectionof the Danube in Vienna (Austria) – evaluation of inshore structures and
habitat diversity. Large rivers, volume 15, issues 1-4, pp. 211-224.
Coops H, Tockner K, Amoros C, Hein T, and Quinn G. (n.d.) Restoring lateral connectionsbetween
rivers and floodplains: lessons on rehabilitations projects. In. Verhoeven J T A, Beltman B,

14. Words: 2,421 724465
14
Bobbink R, and Whigham D F (eds). (2002). Wetlands and Natural Resource Management.
Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
DownsPWandKondolf GM.(2002). Post-projectAppraisalsinAdaptive Managementofriverchannel
restoration. Environmental Management, volume 29, No. 4, pp. 477-496, DOI:
10.1007/s00267-001-0035-X.
Downs P W and Gregory K J. (2004). River channel management: towards sustainable catchment
hydrosystems. Arnold: London.
EderB L andMestl G. (2012). Documentingchange atthe UpperHamburgBend:Nebraska’sfirstside-
channel restoration. Great Plains Research, University of Nebraska, volume 22, (Fall, 2012),
pp. 147-161.
Edina Digimap. (2016). Historic collection, ancient roam (1846 to 1996). Retrieved from
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/historic, accessed 09.12.2016.
Environment Agency. (2015). Rivers of the Isle of Wight (fact files). Retrieved from
http://www.islandrivers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Isle-of-Wight-Rivers-EA-
Publication.pdf, accessed 11.12.2016.
Hector C. (June,2013). Medina River EnhancementProject. RiverRestorationNews,
www.therrc.co.uk.
Isle of WightCouncil.(2003,January).Isle of WightBiodiversityActionPlan–WetlandsHabitatAction
Plan.Retrievedfrom https://www.iwight.com/documentlibrary/download/wetlands-habitat-
action-plan, accessed 17.12.2016.
Geering G W, Kater E, van den Brink C, Baptist M J, Ragas A., M J and Smits A., J M. (2008). Nature
rehabilitationbyfloodplainexcavation:the hydrauliceffectof 16 yearsof sedimentationand
vegetation succession along the Waal River, NL. Geomorphology, volume 99, pp. 317-328.
GilvearD andBradleyS. (1997). Geomorphological adjustmentof anewlyengineereduplandsinuous
gravel-bed river diversion: Evan Water, Scotland. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management, volume 13, pp. 377-389.
Kail J,HeringD,Muhar S, GerhardM, and PreisS.(2007). The use of large woodinstreamrestoration:
experiencesfrom50 projectsinGermanyand Austria. Journalof Applied Ecology,volume44,
pp. 1145-1155.
Kenwick R A, Shammin Md R, and Sullivan W C. (2009). Preferences for riparian buffers. Landscape
and Urban Planning, volume 91, pp. 88-96.
Knighton D. (1998). Fluvial forms and processes. Hodder: London.
KronvangB,SvendsenLM, BrookesA,FisherK,MollerB,OttosenO,NewsomeM,andSearD. (1998).
Restoration of the rivers Brede, Cole, and Skerne: a joint Danish and British EU-LIFE
demonstration project, III – channel morphology,hydrodynamics and transport of sediment
and nutrients. Aquatic conservation: Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems, volume 8, issue 1,
pp. 209-222.
LarsenP.(n.d.) RestorationofRiverCorridors:GermanExperiences,pp.124-143.In.PettsGandCalow
P. (eds). River Restoration. Blackwell Science: Oxford.

15. Words: 2,421 724465
15
Lenar-MaytasA, Korpak J, and Maczalowski A. (2015). Influence of extreme discharge onrestoration
worksinmountainriver–a case studyof the Krzczonowkariver(SouthernPoland). Journalof
Ecological Engineering, volume 16, issue 3, pp. 83-96, DOI 10.12911/22998993/2941.
Lepori F, Palm D, Brannas E, and Malmqvist B. (2005). Does restoration of structural habitat
heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological
applications, volume 15, issue 6, pp. 2060-2071.
Lyon J, Stuart I, Ramsey D and O’Mahony. (2010). The effect of water level on lateral movement of
fish between river and off-channel habitats and implications for management. Marine and
freshwater research, volume 61, pp. 271-278.
Morris S and Mosses T. (1999). Urban stream rehabilitation: a design and construction case study.
Environmental management, volume 23, issue 2, pp. 165-177.
MorleyS A, Garcia P S, BennettT R, and Roni P. (2005). Juvenile salmonid (Oncorhynchus spp.) useof
constructed and natural side channels in Pacific Northwest rivers. Canadian Journal of Fish
and Aquatic science, volume 62, pp. 2811-2821, doi: 10.1139/F05-185.
PalmerMA,BernhardtE S,AllanJD,Lake PS,AlexanderG,BrooksS,CarrJ,ClaytonS,DahmCN,Shah
J F, Galat D L, Loss S G, Goodwin P, Hart D., D., Hassett B, Jenkison R, Kondolf G M, Lave R,
Meyer J L, O’Donnell T K, Pagano L, and Sudduth E. (2005). Standards for ecologically
successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, volume 42, pp. 208-217.
Palmer M A, Menninger H L, and Bernhardt E. (2009). River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and
biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology, volume 55, pp. 1-18
PasternackG B,BounrisavongMK andParikhK,K.(2007). Backwatercontrol onriffle-pool hydraulics,
fishhabitatquality,andsedimenttransportingravel-bedrivers. Journalof hydrology,volume
357, pp. 125-139.
PrettyJL,HarrisonS.,S.,C,ShepherdDJ,SmithC,Hildrew A GandHeyRD.(2003).Riverrehabilitation
and fishpopulations:assessingthe benefitof instreamstructures. Journalof applied ecology,
volume 40, pp. 251-265.
Osbourne L., L, and Kovacic D A. (1993). Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality and
restoration and stream management. Freshwater biology, volume 29, pp. 243-258.
Radspinner R., R., Diplas P, Lightbody A F, and Sotiropoulos F. (2010). River training and ecological
enhancement potential of using in-stream structures. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
volume 36, issue 12, pp. 967-980
Rhode S, Schutz M, Kienast F, and Englmaier P. (2005). River widening: an approach to restoring
riparian habitats and plant speciesdiversity. River research and applications, volume 21, pp.
1075-1094, DOI: 10.1002/rra.870.
RomingerJ T, LightbodyA F, and Nepf H M. (2010). Effects of added vegetationonsandbar stability
and stream hydrodynamics. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, volume 132, issue 12, pp. 994-
1002.
Shields Jr, D A, Copeland R.R, Klingeman P C, Doyle M W, and Simon A. (2003). Design for stream
rehabilitation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, volume 129, issue 8, pp. 575-584.

16. Words: 2,421 724465
16
SmithSMand PrestegaardKL.(2005). Hydraulicperformanceof amorphology-basedstreamchannel
design. Water resources research, volume 41, pp. 1-17 doi: 10.1029/2004WR003926.
Soar P J and Thorne C R. (September, 2001). Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers
(ERDC/CHL CR-01-1). University of Nottingham: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Thompson D M. (2002). Long-term effect of instream habitat-improvement structures on channel
morphology along the Blackledge and Salmon Rivers, Connecticut, USA. Environmental
Management, volume 29, issue 1, pp. 250-265.
Tunstall SM,Penning-RowsellEC,Tapsell SM,andEdenSE.(2000). Riverrestoration:publicattitudes
and expectations. Water and Environment Journal, volume 14, issue 5, pp. 363-370.
WheatonJ M, Darby S E, and Sear D A. (n.d.) The scope of uncertaintiesinriverrestoration.InDarby
S and Sear D, A (Eds.) (2008). River Restoration: Managing the Uncertainty in Restoring
Physical Habitat. Wiley and Sons: Chichester.
Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehin E, Hostmann M, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S,
Tiegs S D, Tockner K, Webber C, and Peter A. (2007). A strategy to assess river restoration
success. Freshwater Biology, volume 52, pp. 752-769.
VishnudasS,SavenijeH.,H.,G,VanDerZaag P,Anil KR,Balan,K.(2006). The protective andattractive
covering of a vegetated embankment using coir geotextiles. Hydrology and Earth Systems
Science Discussions, European Geosciences Union, volume 10, issue 1, pp. 565-574 <hal-
00305010>.
Appendix

17. Words: 2,421 724465
17
Figure 13: a schematic of the proposed side channel connection.
Figure 14: schematic drawing of the left hand-side of the cross over, based upon initial observations.

18. Words: 2,421 724465
18
Figure 15: the right hand-side of the cross-over, when viewed from the bridge. Again based upon initial field observations.
Figure 16: finalised schematic diagram following a literature search of the left hand-side of the cross-over.