Case study:Rewilding the Rom

From RESTORE
Revision as of 16:45, 6 February 2024 by TylerThames21 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 33' 28.30" N, 0° 11' 2.29" E
Loading map...
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 In progress
Project web site http://www.thames21.org.uk/improving-rivers/rewilding-the-rom/
Themes Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Monitoring, Social benefits, Water quality, Urban
Country England
Main contact forename Carolina
Main contact surname Pinto
Main contact user ID User:TylerThames21
Contact organisation Thames 21
Contact organisation web site http://www.thames21.org.uk
Partner organisations London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Environment Agency, Essex and Suffolk Water (Northumbrian Water), Kusuma Trust, Land of the Fanns, Thames Chase, Mayor of London
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The River Rom is a tributary of the River Thames and forms the boundary between the east London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Havering.

Like many of London’s rivers, the Rom has suffered in recent years. Water quality has been impacted by sewage misconnections and overflows, whilst habitats for wildlife have been damaged by dredging and straightening of the river channel.

The downstream reach of the River Rom (also known as the River Beam) flows through the eastern section of The Chase Local Nature Reserve (LNR). The Chase LNR incorporates nearly 50 hectares of meadows, ponds, marshes and woodlands and has been designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation.

In 2021, funding from the Land of the Fanns Partnership Scheme allowed two seasonal wetlands (known as scrapes) to be dug on the Havering Side of the River Rom. These scrapes trap water on the floodplain during times of heavy rain and act as important habitats for wetland plants, birds, and other animals.

In 2022, thanks to funding from the Kusuma Trust, the Mayor of London’s Rewild London Fund, and Essex and Suffolk Water, Thames21 will be working in partnership with The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to further reconnect the River Rom with its floodplain, this time on the opposite bank. To do this, we breached a large flood embankment in three places and dug out three interconnected wetlands. In high flows, the river floods into this newly connected area of floodplain, creating an area of seasonal wetlands, rich in wildlife including frogs, newts, dragonflies and water birds.

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


River Rom Wetlands As-built 11.10 (13).jpeg
Before and after collage.png
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name River Rom
WFD water body codes GB106037028120
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Rom (Bourne Brook to Ravensbourne) Water Body
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation UK - Local Nature Reserve
Local/regional site designations Local Nature Reserve
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present Yes
Species of interest Himalayan Balsam, Japanese Knotweed, water vole (Arvicola terrestris)
Dominant hydrology Quick run-off, Groundwater
Dominant substrate Clay, Silt
River corridor land use Urban, Irrigated land, Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture
Average bankfull channel width category 2 - 5 m
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
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

Reach length directly affected (m) 300300 m <br />0.3 km <br />30,000 cm <br />
Project started 2019/01/01
Works started 2022/09/01
Works completed 2023/06/01
Project completed 2024/07/31
Total cost category 100 - 500 k€
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Essex & Suffolk Water, Greater London Authority, Kusuma Trust

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design 1 - 10 k€ Thames21
Stakeholder engagement and communication 10 - 50 k€ Thames21
Works and works supervision 10 - 50 k€ Thames21
Post-project management and maintenance 10 - 50 k€ Thames21
Monitoring 1 - 10 k€ Thames21



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Flood risk management, Invasive species, Urbanisation, Riparian development, Pollution incident
Hydromorphology
Biology Urbanisation, Private Sewage Treatment, Misconnections, Transport Drainage, Contaminated land, Poor nutrient management, Poor soil management, Track/rural road
Physico-chemical Poor nutrient management, Misconnections, Private Sewage Treatment
Other reasons for the project Improving biodiversity in a local nature reserve, Community demand, Recreation


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

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

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

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information