Case study:Rookhope Burn: Abandoned Metal Mines

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


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


Location: 54° 46' 9.23" N, 2° 7' 53.28" 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 Environmental flows and water resources, Habitat and biodiversity, Monitoring, Water quality
Country England
Main contact forename Hugh
Main contact surname Potter
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations The Coal Authority (UK)
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Breakout near Rispey mine

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The Rookhope Burn is in the North Pennine orefield, and mining has been carried out in the valley for over 200 years - mainly for lead and fluorspar along with small deposits of copper and iron. This has left a legacy of mine water drainage adits and spoil heaps throughout the area. The last working fluorspar mine in the north of England, at Grove Rake, closed in 1999. In 2007, a new mine water breakout occurred, thought to be due to a blockage within the Tail Race level, which drains the abandoned mines further up the valley. This caused a large hole and a new discharge near to the old Rispey mine.

Water quality monitoring by the Environment Agency found there were high concentrations of cadmium, lead and zinc in the Rookhope Burn where it joins the River Wear. These high metal levels damage river life (insects and fish) and exceed the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for the Rookhope Burn, meaning that the watercourse isn't achieving the 'good status' for water quality that is set out in our Northumbria River Basin Plan. We found there are inputs of metals from disused adits and diffuse sources along the whole length of the Rookhope Burn but the largest single source is from the new breakout, which if cleaned up could improve over 8km of river. Fish surveys carried out by the Environment Agency in 2009 found reasonably good numbers of brown trout in the upper reaches of the Rookhope Burn and downstream of Rookhope Village but very poor numbers in the middle section - this was attributed to the impact of the Rispey mine discharge.

We're continuing to investigate and monitor the water quality in the Rookhope Burn, and with funding from Defra we set up a partnership with the Coal Authority and the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership (AONB) to look at options for removing the metals from the Rispey discharge to improve the water quality of the watercourse. Newcastle University are carrying out trials of treatment technologies which we could use to remove the heavy metals from the Rispey discharge, preventing the problem at the source and helping the Rookhope Burn to meet the EQS and return to 'good' ecological status.

• The Rookhope Burn fails its EQS for cadmium, lead and zinc. • In times of low flow the Rispey discharge is contributing more zinc than reaches the River Wear indicating metals are being retained in the river sediments. • When the river flows increase, a greater load of metals reaches the end of the catchment than enters the Rookhope Burn from the Rispey discharge. Additional metals are being washed into the river from mining spoil by rainfall, and from mobilising the metals previously retained within the river sediments. • Treating the mine water discharge to remove the metals could enable 8km of river to pass the EQS and help the waterbody improve to good ecological and chemical status.

Impact of the minewater discharge • Length of watercourse affected is 8km (one water body) • Average metal concentration: Zinc 1.5 mg/l Cadmium 1.5 ug/l • Average flow 35 l/sec • Load of zinc discharged per annum 1.5 Tonnes • Water body ecological status is Moderate

Benefits of remediation • The River Wear will be protected from a major pollution source • We are using compelling evidence to drive our decisions • We are developing partnerships with important stakeholders and using our position as an influential advisor to deliver shared environmental outcomes • Contribute towards achieving Good Ecological and Chemical status • 1.5 Tonnes of zinc would be prevented from entering River Wear every year

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


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Northumbria
River basin Wear

Subcatchment

River name Rookhope Burn from Source to Wear
Area category 10 - 100 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 500 - 1000 m
Maximum altitude (m) 610610 m <br />0.61 km <br />61,000 cm <br />
Dominant geology Siliceous
Ecoregion Great Britain
Dominant land cover Heather grassland
Waterbody ID GB103024077530



Site

Name
WFD water body codes GB103024077530
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name Rookhope Burn from Source to Wear
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 2009
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 Pollution incident, Mine drainage metal concentrations
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical Nutrient concentrations
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions Trials, reviewed treatment technologies, Remediation Treatment, Prevent problem at source
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other Survey work, Fish surveys, Improving water quality


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