Case study:Lower River Roding Regeneration Project: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
{{Additional links and references footer}} | {{Additional links and references footer}} | ||
{{Supplementary Information | {{Supplementary Information | ||
|Information='''Creekmouth''' | |Information='''[Barking Creekmouth]''' | ||
*Tidal backwater creating two areas of BAP habitat: 0.1ha tidal mudflat habitat and 0.9ha of saltmarsh habitat. | *Tidal backwater creating two areas of BAP habitat: 0.1ha tidal mudflat habitat and 0.9ha of saltmarsh habitat. | ||
*New site entrance | *New site entrance | ||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
*3-level intertidal terracing of 30m riverbank | *3-level intertidal terracing of 30m riverbank | ||
*Redesigned seating area | *Redesigned seating area | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 20:01, 22 August 2012
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Toni |
Main contact surname | Scarr |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Environment Agency |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk |
Partner organisations | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
Barking Creek near A13, Barking Creekmouth, Cuckolds Haven Nature Area, Mill Pool |
Project summary
This project was the first in Thames Region to be delivered by the Environment Agency using funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM, now DCLG) Sustainable Communities Fund.
In May 2004 we submitted a bid to the ODPM for £1million to undertake a series of environmental enhancements along the River Roding in its lower reaches where it passes through the London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham and Newham. The funding bid was approved in October 2004 and the project had to be delivered by the end of the funding period in March 2006. A number of environmental and amenity enhancements were delivered by this project. These included improved habitat for wildlife (including provision of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats), improved access to waterside areas, new seating/viewing areas, retreated and renewed flood defences and increased flood storage capacity.
This is an area of London where development has historically lead to the degradation of habitats along the River Roding and its tidal confluence with the Thames. It is therefore important that BAP habitat such as saltmarsh and mudflat is restored to the Creek.
BACKGROUND
The River Roding is a tributary of the River Thames. It rises to the north east of London and flows south through East London, through and along the boundary of a number of London Boroughs, before joining the River Thames in Barking. The lower reaches of the River Roding are tidal and the land adjacent to the River Roding throughout the project area is protected from tidal and fluvial flooding by flood defences. In addition to these defences the Barking Barrier protects the area from extreme high tides. This barrier is part of the Thames tidal defences. The Barking Barrier is situated at the confluence of the River Thames and the River Roding.
The Lower Roding Regeneration Project covers 4.5km of the River Roding where it flows through the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and London Borough of Newham, between grid references TQ 436848 and TQ 458816.
The lower reaches of the River Roding are extremely urbanised and many of the riverside areas are of low environmental quality with poor aesthetic appeal and are difficult to access. Infrastructure barriers currently make it a difficult landscape to easily navigate and enjoy. These barriers include a railway line crossing and the A13 trunk road, creating east-west barriers, and the A406 North Circular Road running parallel to but set back from the west bank of the river.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Name | |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | |
WFD (national) typology | |
WFD water body name | |
Pre-project morphology | |
Reference morphology | |
Desired post project morphology | |
Heavily modified water body | |
National/international site designation | |
Local/regional site designations | |
Protected species present | |
Invasive species present | |
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 | |||||
Monitoring |
Reasons for river restoration
Mitigation of a pressure | |
---|---|
Hydromorphology | |
Biology | |
Physico-chemical | |
Other reasons for the project |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | |
Floodplain / River corridor | |
Planform / Channel pattern | |
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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information
[Barking Creekmouth]
- Tidal backwater creating two areas of BAP habitat: 0.1ha tidal mudflat habitat and 0.9ha of saltmarsh habitat.
- New site entrance
- Two seating/viewing areas with site information boards
- Retreated flood defence providing approx. 15,000m3 additional storage
- 310m new footpath
Land Nr A13
- Retreat and renewal of a 50m section of flood defence providing approximately 2000m3
- Creation of approx. 390m2 of BAP habitat (including mudflat and saltmarsh) at the site
Cuckolds Haven'
- Create riverside seating area and info boards
- New site entrance,
- 130m new footpath
Mill Pool
- 3-level intertidal terracing of 30m riverbank
- Redesigned seating area