Case study:Barking Creekmouth: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(21 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=Complete | |Status=Complete | ||
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits | |Project web site url=www.estuaryedges.co.uk/case-studies/barking-creek-creekmouth/ | ||
|Themes=Estuary, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban | |||
|Country=England | |Country=England | ||
|Main contact forename=Scarr | |Main contact forename=Scarr | ||
|Main contact surname=Toni | |Main contact surname=Toni | ||
|Main contact id=Ascarr | |||
|Contact organisation=Environment Agency | |Contact organisation=Environment Agency | ||
|Contact organisation url=www.environment-agency.gov.uk | |Contact organisation url=www.environment-agency.gov.uk | ||
Line 18: | Line 14: | ||
|Picture description=during construction | |Picture description=during construction | ||
|Project summary='''Previous site use/issues''' | |Project summary='''Previous site use/issues''' | ||
* underused and undervalued area of greenspace, owned by the Environment Agency, adjacent to the Barking Barrier. | |||
* The terrestrial habitat consisted of species poor grassland with patches of scrub and Japanese knotweed. Areas which would have supported saltmarsh species were encased in riprap covered in bitumen and had be historically land raised. | |||
* The foreshore in this area is important for overwintering birds such as teal, shelduck, tufted duck, wigeon, gadwell, shoveler, pintail, little grebe. Common whitethroat, sandmartins and linnet has been seen breeding in the area a pair of oyster catchers were also recorded breeding in 2000. Saltmarsh and mudflat UK BAP habitat is very important for these types of fauna and also flora. | |||
* Barking Creek is recognised as a valuable feeding and refuge area for a variety of fish species, flounder, eel, smelt, sea bass in both their adults and juveniles life stages. These utilise the full range of sub, intertidal and saltmarsh habitats for foraging and refuge. | |||
* There was limited amenity use, lack of seating areas, views from site obstructed by flood defences and no wheelchair access to site. | |||
* Failing flood defences. | |||
|Monitoring surveys and results='''Enhancements''' | |||
* Breach of existing defence and creation of tidal backwater providing increased flood storage and wildlife habitat. | |||
* The backwater area and new reedbeds represent a new, highly valuable feeding and refuge area for fish. Recent studies have shown that both juvenile and adult fish move into these areas as soon as they are inundated. They feed extensively on the invertebrates present within the reedbeds. Such habitats are increasingly thought to significantly enhance the juvenile survival of commercially important fish such as bass. The Thames Estuary is now recognised as an important nursery area for this species. | |||
* Retreat and renewal of flood defences to provide current standards of flood risk allowing for changes due to climate change. | |||
* New site entrance and access route through site. | |||
* Creation of new seating and viewing areas. | |||
* Interpretation boards installed with the aid of Lee Rivers Trust and local school children helped design the boards | |||
|Lessons learn=The sites were important for overwintering birds: teal, shelduck, tufted duck, wigeon, gadwell, shoveler, pintail, little grebe, common whitethroat, sandmartins, oyster catchers and linnet. Peregrine falcons also use the site. | |||
Barking Creek is recognised as a valuable feeding and refuge area for a variety of fish species, flounder, eel, smelt, sea bass in both their adults and juveniles life stages. These utilise the full range of sub, intertidal and saltmarsh habitats for foraging and refuge. | |||
creekmouth should not be located in the direction of the prevailing wind or litter can accumulate. | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study status | |||
|Approval status=Approved | |||
}} | |||
{{Location | |||
|Location=51.51663187419389, 0.09681399943849556 | |||
}} | |||
{{Image gallery}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=IMG 6181.JPG | |||
|Caption=Barking Barrier site | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=Barking Barrier.jpg | |||
|Caption=Barking Barrier | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Image gallery end}} | |||
{{Toggle button}} | |||
{{Toggle content start}} | |||
{{Case study subcatchment | {{Case study subcatchment | ||
|Subcatchment=Barking | |Subcatchment=THAMES MIDDLE | ||
}} | |||
{{Site | |||
|Name=Barking Creekmouth | |||
|WFD water body code=GB530603911402 | |||
|WFD (national) typology=Intertidal, | |||
|WFD water body name=THAMES MIDDLE | |||
|Pre-project morphology=Estuary (tidal), | |||
|Heavily modified water body=Yes | |||
|Local site designation=saltmarsh and mudflat BAP habitat | |||
|Protected species present=No | |||
|Invasive species present=Yes | |||
|Species=Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), European eel (Anguilla anguilla), flounder (Platichthys flesus), Thin lipped mullet (Liza ramada), Sand goby (Pomatoschistus minutes), teal, shelduck, wigeon, gadwell, shoveler, pintail, duck (Anas sp.), oyster catchers, peregrine falcon, sand smelt (Atherina presbyter), | |||
|Dominant hydrology=Tidal, | |||
|Dominant substrate=Estuarine mud, | |||
|River corridor land use=Urban, | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project background | {{Project background | ||
|Reach length directly affected=100 | |Reach length directly affected=100 | ||
Line 52: | Line 75: | ||
|Total cost category=100 - 500 k€ | |Total cost category=100 - 500 k€ | ||
|Total1 cost=284 | |Total1 cost=284 | ||
|Funding sources=Environment Agency, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (now DCLG) Sustainable Communities Fund, | |Funding sources=Environment Agency, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (now DCLG) Sustainable Communities Fund, | ||
}} | |||
{{Motivations | |||
|Specific mitigation=Flood and coastal erosion protection, | |||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Structure & condition of intertidal zone, | |||
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Age structure, | |||
|Other motivation=Landscape enhancement, | |||
}} | |||
{{Measures | |||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Creation of backwaters, | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel realignment, | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{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=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | ||
Line 65: | Line 105: | ||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Monitoring documents}} | {{Monitoring documents}} | ||
{{Case study monitoring documents | |||
|Monitoring document=BARKING CREEK- FINAL MSc PROJECT.pdf | |||
|Description=MSc report on managed realignment | |||
}} | |||
{{Monitoring documents end}} | {{Monitoring documents end}} | ||
{{Additional Documents}} | {{Additional Documents}} | ||
{{Case study documents | |||
|File name=Lower River Roding Regeneration Project.pdf | |||
|Description=summary report | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional Documents end}} | {{Additional Documents end}} | ||
{{Additional links and references header}} | {{Additional links and references header}} | ||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiqkNjc-LXVAhUBbFAKHWD-DDAQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecrr.org%2FPortals%2F27%2FPublications%2FEstuary%2520Edges%2520-%2520design%2520advice.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEXHZpWzrk_KQoH9PuW12bO-JcP0w | |||
|Description=Estuary edges design Guidance (this site is features within the guidance at the bottom of the page) | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references footer}} | {{Additional links and references footer}} | ||
{{Supplementary Information}} | {{Supplementary Information}} | ||
{{Toggle content end}} |
Latest revision as of 13:41, 16 September 2024
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | http://www.estuaryedges.co.uk/case-studies/barking-creek-creekmouth/ |
Themes | Estuary, Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Urban |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Scarr |
Main contact surname | Toni |
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
Previous site use/issues
- underused and undervalued area of greenspace, owned by the Environment Agency, adjacent to the Barking Barrier.
- The terrestrial habitat consisted of species poor grassland with patches of scrub and Japanese knotweed. Areas which would have supported saltmarsh species were encased in riprap covered in bitumen and had be historically land raised.
- The foreshore in this area is important for overwintering birds such as teal, shelduck, tufted duck, wigeon, gadwell, shoveler, pintail, little grebe. Common whitethroat, sandmartins and linnet has been seen breeding in the area a pair of oyster catchers were also recorded breeding in 2000. Saltmarsh and mudflat UK BAP habitat is very important for these types of fauna and also flora.
- Barking Creek is recognised as a valuable feeding and refuge area for a variety of fish species, flounder, eel, smelt, sea bass in both their adults and juveniles life stages. These utilise the full range of sub, intertidal and saltmarsh habitats for foraging and refuge.
- There was limited amenity use, lack of seating areas, views from site obstructed by flood defences and no wheelchair access to site.
- Failing flood defences.
Monitoring surveys and results
Enhancements
- Breach of existing defence and creation of tidal backwater providing increased flood storage and wildlife habitat.
- The backwater area and new reedbeds represent a new, highly valuable feeding and refuge area for fish. Recent studies have shown that both juvenile and adult fish move into these areas as soon as they are inundated. They feed extensively on the invertebrates present within the reedbeds. Such habitats are increasingly thought to significantly enhance the juvenile survival of commercially important fish such as bass. The Thames Estuary is now recognised as an important nursery area for this species.
- Retreat and renewal of flood defences to provide current standards of flood risk allowing for changes due to climate change.
- New site entrance and access route through site.
- Creation of new seating and viewing areas.
- Interpretation boards installed with the aid of Lee Rivers Trust and local school children helped design the boards
Lessons learnt
The sites were important for overwintering birds: teal, shelduck, tufted duck, wigeon, gadwell, shoveler, pintail, little grebe, common whitethroat, sandmartins, oyster catchers and linnet. Peregrine falcons also use the site.
Barking Creek is recognised as a valuable feeding and refuge area for a variety of fish species, flounder, eel, smelt, sea bass in both their adults and juveniles life stages. These utilise the full range of sub, intertidal and saltmarsh habitats for foraging and refuge.
creekmouth should not be located in the direction of the prevailing wind or litter can accumulate.
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Barking Creek near A13, 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
|