Case study:Beam washlands

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 51° 32' 3", 0° 10' 11"
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.therrc.co.uk/sites/default/files/projects/19_beam.pdf
Themes Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits
Country England
Main contact forename Becca
Main contact surname O'Shea
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations Land Trust, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Arup, Design for London, London Borough of Havering, Natural England
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


This multi-award winning partnership project built on a £4.5 million flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) scheme to improve the integrity and capacity of this flood storage washland, providing better protection to over 570 homes and businesses. The scheme provides a large, wildlife-rich, community parkland in one of east London's most deprived communities ((Map 1). This includes 12.6ha of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, 150m of remeandering on the Wantz Stream, 600m of reprofiling and 300m of in-channel features on the River Beam. The project was completed in 2012; maintenance is funded and delivered by partners. Increasing the storage capacity of the existing washlands from 433,000m3 to 458,660m3 provides a standard of protection to downstream properties for (approximately) up to a 1 in 25 year flood event. The provision and operation of the pumping stations provides an enhanced standard of protection of up to 1 in 150 years. This reduces the risk of flooding to 570 homes and 90 businesses. The flood risk regulation benefits of undertaking this project provide a gross asset value of avoided flood damage benefits worth £591,000 per year compared with £193,000 per year before the scheme was constructed.

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


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name Beam
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
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)
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€) £3.7m
"£" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property.
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Environment Agency, London Development Agency, European Regional Development Fund, Communities, Local Government Parklands Fund, Landfill Tax Credits Scheme, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

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 risk management
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor Offline storage areas
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