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	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

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.

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

Catchment and subcatchment Select a catchment/subcatchment Edit the catchment and subcatchment details (affects all case studies in this subcatchment) Catchment River basin district Thames River basin London Subcatchment River name Thames Middle Area category Less than 10 km² Area (km2) Maximum altitude category Maximum altitude (m) Dominant geology Ecoregion Great Britain Dominant land cover Urban Waterbody ID GB530603911402 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 Edit site Name Barking Creekmouth WFD water body codes GB530603911402 WFD (national) typology Intertidal WFD water body name THAMES MIDDLE 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 Additional documents and videos Upload additional documents summary report Additional links and references Edit links and references Link Description Supplementary Information Edit Supplementary Information