Case study:March Burn at Riding Mill: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Hazel Wilson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
{{Site | {{Site | ||
|WFD water body code=GB103023075650 | |WFD water body code=GB103023075650 | ||
|WFD water body name=March Burn Catchment (trib of Tyne) | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |Heavily modified water body=No | ||
|Protected species present=No | |Protected species present=No |
Revision as of 14:31, 23 October 2015
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 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
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|