Case study:Mill Pool: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 37: Line 37:
|Subcatchment=Roding
|Subcatchment=Roding
}}
}}
{{Site}}
{{Site
|Name=Mill Pool
|WFD (national) typology=Intertidal,
|Pre-project morphology=Estuary (tidal),
|Heavily modified water body=Yes
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|Dominant hydrology=Tidal,
|Dominant substrate=Estuarine mud,
|River corridor land use=Urban,
}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Motivations}}

Revision as of 17:25, 29 August 2012

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 32' 1.80" N, 0° 4' 23.10" E
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 Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename Toni
Main contact surname Scarr
Main contact user ID User:Ascarr
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Case_study:Lower River Roding Regeneration Project

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Previous site use/issues

• There was poor riverside habitat as the site was formed of concrete banks and concrete revetment. The site is above a tidal barrier but does receive tidal variations on spring tides.

• The seating area on the edge of Mill Pool and the River Roding was largely redundant and unused.

• The design of the site limits the views from the site.

• The site did not convey any understanding about historic importance of the Mill Pool to Barking.

Enhancements

• ’Terracing’ of existing concrete riverbank to create intertidal habitat. The terraces are back filled with an appropriate gravel substrate and clad with timber sourced sustainably.

• Redesign of riverside seating area to improve outlook and convey information about historic importance of the Mill Pool.

• Worked in collaboration with local authority and local artist to produce seating area design.

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.

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment


Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)

Subcatchment:Roding


Site

Edit site
Name Mill Pool
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology Intertidal
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology Estuary (tidal)
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 Tidal
Dominant substrate Estuarine mud
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

Edit 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

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


Measures

Edit 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

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Edit 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

Edit Other responses
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents



Image gallery



Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information