Case study:Barking Creek near A13: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|Name=Barking Creek near the A13 | |Name=Barking Creek near the A13 | ||
|WFD water body code=GB530603911402 | |||
|WFD (national) typology=intertidal, | |WFD (national) typology=intertidal, | ||
|WFD water body name=THAMES MIDDLE | |||
|Pre-project morphology=Estuary (tidal), | |Pre-project morphology=Estuary (tidal), | ||
|Heavily modified water body=Yes | |Heavily modified water body=Yes |
Revision as of 14:21, 23 October 2015
Location: 51° 31' 40.97" N, 0° 4' 49.82" E
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Social benefits, Urban |
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 | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Edit project overview to modify the project summary.
Previous site use/issues
- Terrestrial habitat with rank grassland and species poor scrubland.
- Plot of adjacent to Barking Creek, accessible by informal and underused riverside footpath.
- Blind spots within site (formed by sections of redundant fencing) lead to a raised ‘fear of crime’.
- Riverside footpath not suitable for wheelchairs.
- Concrete flood defence in poor condition needing replacing.
Enhancements
- Retreat and renewal of flood defences adapting to climate change by creating increased flood storage capacity and improved riverside and intertidal habitat. Reed bunting and sand martins have been seen in this area.
- Sand martin nesting tubes.
- Improved footpath, suitable for wheelchairs.
- Blind spots remove and the site opened up although reeds allowed establish to help protect the wildlife on the river.
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
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Barking Creekmouth, Chambers Wharf, Cuckolds Haven Nature Area, Greenwich Peninsula, Lower River Roding Regeneration Project, Mill Pool, Saving Chiswick Eyot, Wandsworth Riverside Quarter
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
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
|