Case study:River Keekle Restoration

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: none specified

Edit location

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	Complete
Project web site	http://westcumbriariverstrust.org/projects/keekle
Themes	Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Water quality
Country	England
Main contact forename	Luke
Main contact surname	Bryant
Main contact user ID	User:WCRT
Contact organisation	West Cumbria Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site	http://westcumbriariverstrust.org/
Partner organisations	Environment Agency, Natural England, AECOM, university of salford
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 River Keekle is a tributary of the River Ehen located around 3 kilometres east of Whitehaven, in West Cumbria. The river was heavily modified until the 1990s due to nearby coal mining. After mine spoil was buried across the site the river was lined with an HDPE plastic liner. This liner was failing and heavily degraded, posing a flood risk and potential catastrophic contamination issue for the Keekle, as well as the River Ehen which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation. Research by the University of Salford showed the liner had been shedding 500kg of plastic particles per year since its installation.

There was also concern that the river would vertically erode through the clay cap installed below the liner and expose ground water potentially mixed with mine waste that was buried in the 1990s, allowing heavy metals and chemicals to leach into the Keekle and further downstream. Whilst all of the EA’s sampling of water quality currently proved there was no contamination across the site, if nothing was done to stop erosion, there was a real possibility of the Keekle exposing mine waste in the future.

The Upper Keekle was also failing under the Water Framework Directive classification as a habitat for fish due to mining-related modifications. The modifications include the liner, bed-check weirs that washed out during floods in the 1990s, erratic boulder locations and areas where the plastic has broken up, creating barriers to natural fish migration.

This project, over a two-year period (2019-2020) removed the entire extent of plastic lining, replacing with boulders, cobbles and gravels to naturalise the river. A total of 180 tonnes of plastic was eventually removed and recycled, whilst around 16,000 tonnes of stones were imported into the site and strategically placed throughout the 2.5km expanse of restored river.

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 North West River basin South West Lakes Subcatchment River name River Keekle (upper) Area category 10 - 100 km² Area (km2) Maximum altitude category 200 - 500 m Maximum altitude (m) 245245 m <br />0.245 km <br />24,500 cm <br /> Dominant geology Calcareous Ecoregion Great Britain Dominant land cover Improved grassland Waterbody ID GB112074070030 Site Edit site Name Keekle WFD water body codes GB112074070030 WFD (national) typology WFD water body name Keekle (upper) Pre-project morphology Artificial bed Reference morphology Desired post project morphology Pool-riffle, Step-pool, Actively meandering Heavily modified water body No National/international site designation Local/regional site designations Protected species present Yes Invasive species present No Species of interest Salmon (Salmo salar) and Sea-trout (Salmo trutta trutta), brown trout (Salmo trutta), European eel, Brook lamprey, Sea lamprey, stone loach Dominant hydrology Quick run-off Dominant substrate Clay, Earth, Cobble, Boulders, Gravel River corridor land use Rough unimproved grassland/pasture, Plantation forestry Average bankfull channel width category 5 - 10 m Average bankfull channel width (m) Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m Average bankfull channel depth (m) Mean discharge category Mean annual discharge (m3/s) Average channel gradient category 0.001 - 0.01 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