Case study:March Burn at Riding Mill

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 54° 56' 47", -1° 58' 48"
Edit location
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 Complete
Project web site
Themes Fisheries
Country England
Main contact forename Paul
Main contact surname Atkinson
Main contact user ID User:NickRRC
Contact organisation Tyne Rivers Trust
Contact organisation web site http://tyneriverstrust.org/
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
mill weir on the March Burn before fish pass installation (picture courtesy of P.Atkinson from the Tyne Rivers Trust)

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The ageing mill weir at Riding Mill on the March Burn had become a serious barrier to fish migration. The difference in water levels upstream to downstream was 1000mm. Although large salmon can leap higher than this in certain circumstances, the very shallow water and the wide weir crest meant that the weir was virtually impassable.

In the summer of 2012 the Tyne Rivers Trust undertook work to improve fish passage. At this site electro fishing had highlighted poor salmon numbers and lower species diversity upstream of the obstruction. Following public consultation and using funding from DEFRA, contractors set about installing a full width rock ramp fish pass. This involved retaining the existing weir crest, with the addition of a series of rock ramps. The result is a series of pools constructed with 180 tonnes of stone which reduce the single large leap into several small cascades which are much more easily negotiated by all types of fish. Around 18 miles of river above the weir have become more accessible thanks to the work. Broomhaugh and Riding Parish Council had spent more than £10,000 on repairing the weir in the last decade alone. The River Restoration Centre would like to thank Paul Atkinson from the Tyne Rivers Trust for providing the information and photographs for this case study.

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


mill weir on the March Burn before fish pass installation (picture courtesy of P.Atkinson from the Tyne Rivers Trust)


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Northumbria
River basin Tyne

Subcatchment

River name March Burn Catchment (trib of Tyne)
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 200 - 500 m
Maximum altitude (m) 340
340 m
0.34 km
34,000 cm
Dominant geology Siliceous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Improved grassland
Waterbody ID GB103023075650



Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB103023075650
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name March Burn Catchment (trib of Tyne)
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

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started 2012
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2012/08/31
Total cost category 10 - 50 k€
Total cost (k€) 41000
41,000 k€
41,000,000 €
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Defra, Broomhaugh and Riding Parish Council

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
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Rock ramp construction, Creation of fish passes
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