Case study:March Burn at Riding Mill: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
|Funding sources=DEFRA, Broomhaugh and Riding Parish Council | |Funding sources=DEFRA, Broomhaugh and Riding Parish Council | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations}} | {{Motivations | ||
|Specific mitigation=Barriers to fish migration, | |||
}} | |||
{{Measures}} | {{Measures}} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} |
Revision as of 17:22, 17 January 2013
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries |
Country | England |
Main contact forename | Paul |
Main contact surname | Atkinson |
Main contact user ID | User:NickRRC |
Contact organisation | Tyne Rivers Trust |
Contact organisation web site | http://tyneriverstrust.org/ |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The ageing mill weir at Riding Mill on the March Burn had become a serious barrier to fish migration. The difference in water levels upstream to downstream was 1000mm. Although large salmon can leap higher than this in certain circumstances, the very shallow water and the wide weir crest meant that the weir was virtually impassable.
In the summer of 2012 the Tyne Rivers Trust undertook work to improve fish passage. At this site electro fishing had highlighted poor salmon numbers and lower species diversity upstream of the obstruction. Following public consultation and using funding from DEFRA, contractors set about installing a full width rock ramp fish pass. This involved retaining the existing weir crest, with the addition of a series of rock ramps. The result is a series of pools constructed with 180 tonnes of stone which reduce the single large leap into several small cascades which are much more easily negotiated by all types of fish. Around 18 miles of river and stream above the weir have become more accessible thanks to the work. Broomhaugh and Riding Parish Council had spent more than £10,000 on repairing the weir in the last decade alone. The River Restoration Centre would like to thank Paul Atkinson from the Tyne Rivers Trust for providing the information and photographs for this case study.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Name | |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | |
WFD (national) typology | |
WFD water body name | |
Pre-project morphology | |
Reference morphology | |
Desired post project morphology | |
Heavily modified water body | |
National/international site designation | |
Local/regional site designations | |
Protected species present | |
Invasive species present | |
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 | 10 - 50 k€ |
Total cost (k€) | 4100041,000 k€ <br />41,000,000 € <br /> |
Benefit to cost ratio | |
Funding sources | DEFRA, Broomhaugh and Riding Parish Council |
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 | Barriers to fish migration |
---|---|
Hydromorphology | |
Biology | |
Physico-chemical | |
Other reasons for the project |
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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information