Case study:Barking Creekmouth

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
4.00
(one vote)


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


Location: 51° 31' 0", 0° 5' 49"
Edit location
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 Complete
Project web site http://www.estuaryedges.co.uk/case-studies/barking-creek-creekmouth/
Themes 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

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.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey 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

Edit project overview to modify the 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


Barking Barrier site
Barking Barrier
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and 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

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

Reach length directly affected (m) 100
100 m
0.1 km
10,000 cm
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2006/03/31
Total cost category 100 - 500 k€
Total cost (k€) 284
284 k€
284,000 €
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

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

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Creation of backwaters
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern Channel realignment
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
Fish Yes Yes No No No Improvement

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
http://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 Estuary edges design Guidance (this site is features within the guidance at the bottom of the page)

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information