Case study:Barking Creekmouth

4.00

(one vote)

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

Location: 51° 30' 59.87" N, 0° 5' 48.53" E

Edit location

Loading map...

{"format":"googlemaps3","type":"HYBRID","minzoom":false,"maxzoom":false,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"limit":50,"offset":0,"link":"all","sort":[""],"order":[],"headers":"show","mainlabel":"","intro":"","outro":"","searchlabel":"... further results","default":"","import-annotation":false,"width":"auto","height":"400px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"visitedicon":"","wmsoverlay":false,"zoom":14,"layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview","rotate"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"resizable":false,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"cluster":false,"clustergridsize":60,"clustermaxzoom":20,"clusterzoomonclick":true,"clusteraveragecenter":true,"clusterminsize":2,"imageoverlays":[],"kml":[],"gkml":[""],"searchmarkers":"","fullscreen":false,"scrollwheelzoom":false,"showtitle":false,"hidenamespace":true,"template":"Location map popup","userparam":"","activeicon":"","pagelabel":false,"ajaxcoordproperty":"","ajaxquery":"","locations":[{"text":"\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Title:\u003C/b\u003E Barking Creekmouth\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECountry:\u003C/b\u003E \u003Ca href=\"/wiki/index.php?title=England\" title=\"England\"\u003EEngland\u003C/a\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Status:\u003C/b\u003E Complete\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThemes:\u003C/b\u003E Estuary\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E","title":"Barking Creekmouth","link":"","lat":51.516631874194,"lon":0.096813999438496,"icon":"/wiki/images/a/af/Red_marker.png"}]}

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	Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits
Country	England
Main contact forename	Scarr
Main contact surname	Toni
Main contact user ID
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

during construction

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the 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.

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

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)

Site

Edit site

Name	Barking Creekmouth
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	saltmarsh and mudflat BAP habitat
Protected species present	No
Invasive species present	Yes
Species of interest	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
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)	100100 m <br />0.1 km <br />10,000 cm <br />
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed	2006/03/31
Total cost category	100 - 500 k€
Total cost (k€)	284284 k€ <br />284,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources	Environment Agency, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (now DCLG) Sustainable Communities Fund

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	Flood and coastal erosion protection
Hydromorphology	Structure & condition of intertidal zone
Biology	Fish: Age structure
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project	Landscape enhancement

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
Fish	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Improvement

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

Edit Image gallery

Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents

summary report

Additional links and references

Edit links and references

Link	Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information