Case study:Haltwhistle burn; a total catchment approach

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

4.00

(one vote)

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

Location: none specified

Edit location

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	In progress
Project web site
Themes	Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality
Country	England
Main contact forename	Ceri
Main contact surname	Gibson
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	Tyne Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site	http://tyneriverstrust.org/
Partner organisations	Haltwhistle Town Council, Northumber-land National Park, Northumberland County Council, Forestry Commission, Natural England, Environment Agency, Newcastle University (NiRES), Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd
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.

Haltwhistle Burn: ‘a total catchment’ approach is a partnership project which will use CRF funds to improve the whole catchment which has suffered the pressures of quarrying, farming, industry and an increasing population. Although the ‘official’ reasons for failure concern pressures on fish according to the criteria provided by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) this project addresses total waterbody issues deriving from a multitude of pressures, each creating ‘sub-lethal’ but chronic stresses. Haltwhistle’s ‘Centre of Britain’ identity, together with attraction of Hadrian’s Wall makes it a po-tentially significant tourism centre, with a focus on both heritage and natural features. There are however significant economic difficulties and youth behaviour issues. Haltwhistle Burn is a central focus and has already attracted works of improvement and interpretation by the Haltwhis-tle Partnership. Since the 2007 floods in the town, Tyne Rivers Trust has nurtured excellent relationships with agencies and extremely enthusiastic individuals directly connected to their catchment. Whilst the project is not a flood defence project this CRF funding now gives us a clear focus for agency action and direct spending on mitigating excess runoff and pollution.

Tyne Rivers Trust have already carried out geomorphological and habitat assessment of the entire burn, concluding that the ‘catchment approach’ would, by combining the small issues, create a significant benefit for the South Tyne and address the WFD ‘poor status’ classification.

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.

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment

Site

Edit 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

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

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents

Additional links and references

Edit links and references

Link	Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information