Case study:Force Crag Mine Remediation

From RESTORE
Revision as of 16:01, 13 May 2014 by NickRRC (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

3.00
(one vote)


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


Location: 54° 35' 1.78" N, 3° 14' 17.44" W
Loading map...
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 Habitat and biodiversity, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Hugh
Main contact surname Potter
Main contact user ID User:HPotter
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations The Coal Authority (UK), Defra (Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), National Trust, Newcastle University
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Force Crag mine, worked for zinc, lead and barytes until 1991, was famously the last working mine in the Lake District. Mine water discharges and diffuse pollution from waste heaps mean it's a major source of cadmium, zinc and lead, depositing around 3 tonnes each year into the watercourse. The metals pollute the Coledale Beck and the Newlands Beck as far as Bassenthwaite Lake, and prevent these water bodies achieving good Chemical and Ecological status for the Water Framework Directive.

The site is now owned by the National Trust and run as a visitor attraction. It's within the Lake District High Fells SAC and two SSSI’s; Force Crag mine itself and Buttermere High Fells. It is also a Scheduled Monument.

We've been working in partnership with the Coal Authority, the National Trust and Newcastle University to develop a remediation scheme for this site with funding from Defra. The ‘vertical flow pond’ designed by Newcastle University is the first of its kind in the UK and uses compost, limestone and woodchips to remove metals from the water without the need for added energy or chemicals. This passive system works by passing the mine water down through the compost mixture where microbial activity binds the metals as sulphides, before discharging through a small wetland and into the Coledale Beck.

In September 2013, the Coal Authority began building the treatment scheme within the existing bunding of the former tailings lagoon. The National Trust and English Heritage supported the scheme as the next stage in the life cycle of this historic industrial site. On 31 March 2014, the valves were opened and mine water started filling up the ponds. Because the treatment relies on microbial activity to bind the metals, it will be a few weeks before we know how well the system is performing. The benefits of cleaning up the Force Crag mine water are estimated to be £1.6m - £4.9m over 25 years, at a cost of ~£1.5m.

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


April 2014. Completed Force Crag mine water treatment scheme. Photo by John Malley.
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


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
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

Mitigation of a pressure
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



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information