Case study:Hedleyhope Burn
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
| Status | Complete |
|---|---|
| Project web site | |
| Themes | Fisheries |
| Country | England |
| Main contact forename | Nick |
| Main contact surname | Elbourne |
| Main contact user ID | |
| Contact organisation | River Restoration Centre |
| Contact organisation web site | http://www.therrc.co.uk |
| Partner organisations | |
| Parent multi-site project | |
| This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The River Deerness catchment has multiple WFD failures, for both fish and water quality. Funding from the Catchment Restoration Fund as well as Durham County Council and Durham University allowed for the provision of a rock pool fish easement at a road culvert on at Cornsay Colliery located on Hedleyhope Burn (a tributary of the River Deerness), completed in September 2012.
Hedleyhope Burn is 9.2km in length. The road culvert has been cutting of fish access to 5km of good quality habitat, as under most flow conditions the culvert becomes impassable. This 30m corrugated steel pipe has rapid and shallow uniform flows when water levels are low, and concentrated high velocity flows at high water levels. An extensive erosion pool at the downstream exit to the culvert exhibits the force of water leaving the culvert. A wide concrete step 15 to 20 cm above the surface of the water also obstructs fish passage into the culvert.
The solution was to replace the existing scour pool with a series of rock pools to provide a variety of flows for fish, as well as drowning out the concrete step by increasing water levels back into the culvert and creating a slower and deeper flow, improving fish passage. Flood risk was not increased as the site is in a deep depression with no buildings close by.
The site is owned by Durham County who also contributed half of the cost. The Wear Rivers Trust helped with the design of the rock pool easement. Due to the location in a high rainfall upland area, 2-3 tonne rocks were used to form a continuous line of bank protection to protect the site a high flow levels. Larger gravels were also used, and willow spiling is due to be installed at a later stage.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)
Site
| Name | Cornsay Colliery |
|---|---|
| WFD water body codes | |
| WFD (national) typology | |
| WFD water body name | |
| Pre-project morphology | Closed culvert |
| Reference morphology | Bedrock cascade |
| 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 | Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture |
| 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 | 2012/09/01 |
| Total cost category | |
| Total cost (k€) | |
| Benefit to cost ratio | |
| Funding sources | catchment restoration fund, Durham county council and Durham University |
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 | Barriers to fish migration |
|---|---|
| Hydromorphology | Continuity for organisms, Continuity of sediment transport |
| Biology | Fish |
| Physico-chemical | |
| Other reasons for the project |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
|---|---|
| Bank/bed modifications | creation of rock pools downstream of culvert |
| 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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
| Link | Description |
|---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information