Case study:Rookhope Burn: Abandoned Metal Mines

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: 54° 46' 9.23" N, 2° 7' 53.28" W

Edit location

Loading map...

{"format":"googlemaps3","type":"HYBRID","minzoom":false,"maxzoom":false,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"limit":50,"offset":0,"link":"all","sort":[""],"order":[],"headers":"show","mainlabel":"","intro":"","outro":"","searchlabel":"... further results","default":"","import-annotation":false,"width":"auto","height":"400px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"visitedicon":"","wmsoverlay":false,"zoom":14,"layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview","rotate"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"resizable":false,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"cluster":false,"clustergridsize":60,"clustermaxzoom":20,"clusterzoomonclick":true,"clusteraveragecenter":true,"clusterminsize":2,"imageoverlays":[],"kml":[],"gkml":[""],"searchmarkers":"","fullscreen":false,"scrollwheelzoom":false,"showtitle":false,"hidenamespace":true,"template":"Location map popup","userparam":"","activeicon":"","pagelabel":false,"ajaxcoordproperty":"","ajaxquery":"","locations":[{"text":"\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Title:\u003C/b\u003E Rookhope Burn: Abandoned Metal Mines\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECountry:\u003C/b\u003E \u003Ca href=\"/wiki/index.php?title=England\" title=\"England\"\u003EEngland\u003C/a\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Status:\u003C/b\u003E In progress\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThemes:\u003C/b\u003E Water quality\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E","title":"Rookhope Burn: Abandoned Metal Mines","link":"","lat":54.7692301,"lon":-2.1314679,"icon":"/wiki/images/a/af/Red_marker.png"}]}

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
Themes	Environmental flows and water resources, Habitat and biodiversity, Monitoring, Water quality
Country	England
Main contact forename	Hugh
Main contact surname	Potter
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations	The Coal Authority (UK)
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 Rookhope Burn is in the North Pennine orefield, and mining has been carried out in the valley for over 200 years - mainly for lead and fluorspar along with small deposits of copper and iron. This has left a legacy of mine water drainage adits and spoil heaps throughout the area. The last working fluorspar mine in the north of England, at Grove Rake, closed in 1999. In 2007, a new mine water breakout occurred, thought to be due to a blockage within the Tail Race level, which drains the abandoned mines further up the valley. This caused a large hole and a new discharge near to the old Rispey mine.

Water quality monitoring by the Environment Agency found there were high concentrations of cadmium, lead and zinc in the Rookhope Burn where it joins the River Wear. These high metal levels damage river life (insects and fish) and exceed the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for the Rookhope Burn, meaning that the watercourse isn't achieving the 'good status' for water quality that is set out in our Northumbria River Basin Plan. We found there are inputs of metals from disused adits and diffuse sources along the whole length of the Rookhope Burn but the largest single source is from the new breakout, which if cleaned up could improve over 8km of river. Fish surveys carried out by the Environment Agency in 2009 found reasonably good numbers of brown trout in the upper reaches of the Rookhope Burn and downstream of Rookhope Village but very poor numbers in the middle section - this was attributed to the impact of the Rispey mine discharge.

We're continuing to investigate and monitor the water quality in the Rookhope Burn, and with funding from Defra, we've set up a partnership with the Coal Authority and the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership (AONB) to look at options for removing the metals from the Rispey discharge to improve the water quality of the watercourse. Newcastle University are carrying out trials of treatment technologies which we could use to remove the heavy metals from the Rispey discharge, preventing the problem at the source and helping the Rookhope Burn to meet the EQS and return to 'good' ecological status.

• The Rookhope Burn fails its EQS for cadmium, lead and zinc. • In times of low flow the Rispey discharge is contributing more zinc than reaches the River Wear indicating metals are being retained in the river sediments. • When the river flows increase, a greater load of metals reaches the end of the catchment than enters the Rookhope Burn from the Rispey discharge. Additional metals are being washed into the river from mining spoil by rainfall, and from mobilising the metals previously retained within the river sediments. • Treating the mine water discharge to remove the metals could enable 8km of river to pass the EQS and help the waterbody improve to good ecological and chemical status.

Impact of the minewater discharge • Length of watercourse affected is 8km (one water body) • Average metal concentration: Zinc 1.5 mg/l Cadmium 1.5 ug/l • Average flow 35 l/sec • Load of zinc discharged per annum 1.5 Tonnes • Water body ecological status is Moderate

Benefits of remediation • The River Wear will be protected from a major pollution source • We are using compelling evidence to drive our decisions • We are developing partnerships with important stakeholders and using our position as an influential advisor to deliver shared environmental outcomes • Contribute towards achieving Good Ecological and Chemical status • 1.5 Tonnes of zinc would be prevented from entering River Wear every year

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

Edit Image gallery

Catchment and subcatchment Select a catchment/subcatchment Edit the catchment and subcatchment details (affects all case studies in this subcatchment) Catchment River basin district Northumbria River basin Wear Subcatchment River name Rookhope Burn from Source to Wear Area category 10 - 100 km² Area (km2) Maximum altitude category 500 - 1000 m Maximum altitude (m) 610610 m <br />0.61 km <br />61,000 cm <br /> Dominant geology Siliceous Ecoregion Great Britain Dominant land cover Heather grassland Waterbody ID GB103024077530 Site Edit site Name WFD water body codes GB103024077530 WFD (national) typology WFD water body name Rookhope Burn from Source to Wear 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 Edit project background Reach length directly affected (m) Project started Works started Works completed Project completed Total cost category Total cost (k€) Benefit to cost ratio Funding sources 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 Edit reasons for restoration Mitigation of a pressure Hydromorphology Biology Physico-chemical Other reasons for the project Measures Edit 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 Edit Hydromorphological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Biological quality elements Edit biological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Physico-chemical quality elements Edit 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 Edit Other responses Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Monitoring documents Upload monitoring documents Additional documents and videos Upload additional documents Additional links and references Edit links and references Link Description Supplementary Information Edit Supplementary Information