Case study:Rainham Creek Tidal Sluice Removal: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Location=51.5085067749023, 0.175209626555443 | |Location=51.5085067749023, 0.175209626555443 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{Project overview | ||
|Status= | |Status=Planned | ||
|Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits | |||
|Country=England | |||
|Main contact forename=Jennifer | |||
|Main contact surname=Norman | |||
|Multi-site=No | |||
|Themes= | |Project summary=Opening up of the creek to the Thames - removal or modification to the tidal sluice. The river is currently impounded.<br>Poor water quality downstream of Riverside STWs.<br>Fish and eel movement is almost totally restricted.<br>Removal would provide the opportunity to creation of BAP habitat; reed, inter-tidal.<br>The River Lee has been impounded, this could offer alternative migratory routes for fish.<br>Massive biodiversity gains can be made by removal of one structure.<br> | ||
Possible constraints included, Potentially very costly, FRM risks need to be fully addressed, Conflicting aims from user groups, Currently a waste management facility is present on site, at mouth of the creek. | |||
|Country= | |||
|Main contact forename= | |||
|Main contact surname= | |||
|Multi-site= | |||
|Project summary= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Image_gallery}} | {{Image_gallery}} | ||
Line 50: | Line 26: | ||
{{Toggle_button}} | {{Toggle_button}} | ||
{{Toggle_content_start}} | {{Toggle_content_start}} | ||
{{ | {{Case study subcatchment | ||
|Subcatchment= | |Subcatchment=Ingrebourne | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|WFD water body code=GB106037028130 | |||
|WFD water body name=Ingrebourne | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |||
|Protected species present=No | |||
|WFD water body code= | |Invasive species present=No | ||
|WFD water body name= | |||
|Heavily modified water body= | |||
|Protected species present= | |||
|Invasive species present= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project_background | {{Project_background | ||
Line 183: | Line 109: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
| | |Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, Impoundments (not hydropower) | ||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Structure & condition of intertidal zone | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures | {{Measures | ||
|Bank and bed modifications measure= | |Bank and bed modifications measure=Removing of concrete structures | ||
|Floodplain / River corridor=Reedbed creation | |||
|Other technical measure=UK BAP habitat creation/restoration, | |||
|Floodplain / River corridor= | |||
|Other technical measure= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} | {{Hydromorphological_quality_elements_header}} |
Latest revision as of 10:55, 1 June 2017
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Planned |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Jennifer |
Main contact surname | Norman |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Opening up of the creek to the Thames - removal or modification to the tidal sluice. The river is currently impounded.
Poor water quality downstream of Riverside STWs.
Fish and eel movement is almost totally restricted.
Removal would provide the opportunity to creation of BAP habitat; reed, inter-tidal.
The River Lee has been impounded, this could offer alternative migratory routes for fish.
Massive biodiversity gains can be made by removal of one structure.
Possible constraints included, Potentially very costly, FRM risks need to be fully addressed, Conflicting aims from user groups, Currently a waste management facility is present on site, at mouth of the creek.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Dovers Corner, Frog Island, Rainham Creek and Thames Confluence
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
|