Thanks Thanks:  30
Likes Likes:  259
Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 274

Thread: River Tees 2019

  1. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Alex View Post
    The fish pass at the barrage has to be one of the worswt designed fish pass ever designed and built. How it got passed for construction is beyond comprehension, although at a wild guess, it was cheap token gesture.
    Agreed. We know now that it was an afterthought. I hope those people at the Barrage were suitably embarrassed when it got shown on TV? I hope they are more embarrassed when we drag them into a courtroom and make them try and defend it?

  2. #232

    Default

    I sent an email into the EA a couple of weeks ago after I found a document from 1999 on the Tees estuary, it's great document actually and a lot of work obviously went into producing it.

    Here's the pdf if anyone is interested in a read;

    http://ea-lit.freshwaterlife.org/arc...J/19000983.pdf

    These are the questions i asked;

    Page 35 of the document it is mentioned that the EA have two monitoring sites for the estuary, namely Portrack jetty & Vulcan street - Do these still exist?

    Page 12 of the document it mentions the Tees stocking with both fry and parr & that it was successful in increasing the number of returning Salmon - where these indigenous fish used?

    Page 34/35 show the dissolved oxygen & ammonia levels back then and projected up until 2002 - What are the current rates for this?


    Page 9 mentions the loss of oxygen levels at the estuary due to the loss of flow due to the Barrage holding back water - Have these levels improved/worsened or remained low?

    Figure 10/11 - Do you have these trends updated to the present year?


    Answers;

    Thank you for your enquiry which was received on 04 November 2019 and to answer the specific questions as follows, I also attach specific water quality data with regard to the Tees estuary to reference some of the answers..



    We can confirm that we still have the Vulcan Street fixed monitor (see attached graphs for DO and Temp). This monitor is approximately 1m above the estuary bed. Oxygen levels higher in the water column are likely to be greater. The Portrack Jetty monitor was removed about 11 years ago as result of vandalism.



    As you can see from the data from Vulcan Street both DO and temperature measurements have remained fairly consistent since 1998, although we have not carried out any statistical analyses on the data.



    We have a longer DO data set from Low Worsall which of course is now above the tidal limit and the barrage. I have included this for your information, the time period on the x-axis is from 1980 to the present day.



    With regard to stocking no indigenous Tees fish were used they were from River Tyne broodstock as that was the nearest sustainable stock from which eggs could be obtained. I believe fish were stocked from around 1985 to 1994 a proportion of which were micro-tagged.



    The attached graph (Doc1) shows Ammonia data from Haverton Hill to 2012. Clearly a substantial reduction in potentially harmful ammonia spikes has been evident at this site. It should be noted that spot sampling by its nature can either miss or highlight specific events or natural variation. Although the data does suggest an improvement at this site.


    Below shows the graphs...

    haverton-hill-pnglow-worsall-pngvulcan-1-pngvulcan-2-png

    Credit to the Environment Agency for this.
    Last edited by cgaines10; 02-12-2019 at 07:01 PM.

  3. #233
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Upper Teesdale
    Posts
    296

    Default Tyne to Tees Fish

    Chris,
    interesting graphs ?
    The time span is too long to be able to derive any meaning, but do provide a few points of possible starters for 10 ?
    The dissolved Oxygen @ Vulcan: Autumn 2016 to Jan.2019 is rather weird, in that it shows very high spike 140-ish % ? followed by a low in the spring/summer of 2018, which even though low doesn't seem to represent the long hot period that the river suffered ?
    Unfortunately I am not scientific enough to understand what that really means...I am still struggling to get my head around, how you can get more than 100% DO?
    If it reaches its upper saturation threshold, (100%), how can it go past it ?

    If memory serves me right there was a thread on here which detailed the fish, from the Tyne hatchery, that were put in the Tees, I think following a pollution incident. It was quoted from the lad who set up the Tyne hatchery...possibly quoted from his book, as it also detailed the several thousands of Sea trout that they introduced into the Tyne unbeknown to the powers that be ?

    We need a man like that on the Tees !

    Mel.....
    Last edited by lowforcefly; 03-12-2019 at 12:27 AM.

  4. #234
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northumberland
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    The most common reason for DO significantly higher than 100% saturation is a high level of photosynthesis, usually symptomatic of an algal bloom which may last a day or two.

  5. #235
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Upper Teesdale
    Posts
    296

    Default Tees fish ?

    I have witnessed fish jumping, several times, but only when conditions are right...high water, never seen it in low water ?
    The downstream side of Eggleston bridge is a prime spot in high water, witnessed several fish porpoising there.
    To put this in perspective, during a couple of sessions on the Tyne I ended up a nervous wreck...it was like the Blitz ?
    There were fish coming up all over the river...in 2' of water behind me, and about 6' from the bank...I will never ignore the inside line again ? Even a 8-10lb fish which came 3' clear of the water so close to my rod tip, I had to whip the rod way ?
    If that is down to number of fish, or behaviour, I don't know....what it is ...it's exciting !

    There are some of us in the upper dale that are aware, and have tried to stir up interest in the barrage situation...I have personally put up threads, a few years ago, about the subjects of the barrage, and signal crayfish, only to be met with not a single reply ?
    It is great to see a lot more interest in the recent campaigns by Chris, Stivvy, and others...if we all get on board we can make it work !
    I would say though...a lot of the regulars I used to see 15 years ago, are not to be seen on the river now. Several lads I know have given up....having not seen a fish, never mind caught one, in 5-6 years.
    I can honestly say that I have only encountered 1 other Salmon angler actually fishing the upper river in the last two seasons....and that is on around 20+ days / season myself. I haven't seen some of the regulars in 3-4 seasons... these were lads who fished morning and night if there was water in.
    There has always been some who play their cards close, be it fish taken, colour of fish taken, or fishing where they maybe shouldn't be?

    Mel....
    Last edited by lowforcefly; 03-12-2019 at 12:16 AM.

  6. #236

    Default

    Chris,
    Thanks for posting this.
    It's interesting that the big drop in ammonia below the barrage lagged the opening of the barrage by a couple of years at least. It's worth asking if there were any major sewage treatment upgrades on the river around that time in Stockton or on any tribs downstream of the barrage but above Vulcan street. I can't find any on t'web but it's worth asking. Of course the upgrades in sewage treatment or new sewers can have a major benefit on pollution in the estuary without a barrage being built. This happened on the Tyne around the time the fish started coming a major new sewer was opened.
    Hopefully the same might happen on the Thames when their new sewage system opens.
    Aside from that interesting bit about ammonia, the barrage doesn't seem to have had much effect at all on the estuary. Looking at the long time series data, you could remove the barrage with no adverse effects. Good news all round then!!
    Oh, it also seems like they only monitor below the barrage in the estuary where the fresh and salt water is well mixed and at low worsall at least ten miles above the barrage. It's worth asking why they don't monitor just above the barrage where it would seem most logical to do so - after all the barrage was intended to clean up the river in Stockton. I'm not sure it would show anything different but it does sound stupid to build a barrage to improve a section of river then not monitor that section of river.

  7. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northumberland
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walleye View Post
    Chris,
    Thanks for posting this.
    It's interesting that the big drop in ammonia below the barrage lagged the opening of the barrage by a couple of years at least. It's worth asking if there were any major sewage treatment upgrades on the river around that time in Stockton or on any tribs downstream of the barrage but above Vulcan street. I can't find any on t'web but it's worth asking. Of course the upgrades in sewage treatment or new sewers can have a major benefit on pollution in the estuary without a barrage being built. This happened on the Tyne around the time the fish started coming a major new sewer was opened.
    Hopefully the same might happen on the Thames when their new sewage system opens.
    Aside from that interesting bit about ammonia, the barrage doesn't seem to have had much effect at all on the estuary. Looking at the long time series data, you could remove the barrage with no adverse effects. Good news all round then!!
    Oh, it also seems like they only monitor below the barrage in the estuary where the fresh and salt water is well mixed and at low worsall at least ten miles above the barrage. It's worth asking why they don't monitor just above the barrage where it would seem most logical to do so - after all the barrage was intended to clean up the river in Stockton. I'm not sure it would show anything different but it does sound stupid to build a barrage to improve a section of river then not monitor that section of river.
    All the big sources of sewage and industrial pollution are below the barrage. There used to be a sewage works at Portrack until the sewers were diverted to Bran Sands when the sewage works there was built in 2000. Bran Sands provides a higher level of treatment than Portrack did and also treats effluents from a number of industries and most others have either closed or have better effluent treatment than they used to. That shows up in the progressive reduction in oxygen demand and ammonia loads to the estuary and in the ammonia concentrations measured at Haverton Hill.

  8. #238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NEbody View Post
    All the big sources of sewage and industrial pollution are below the barrage. There used to be a sewage works at Portrack until the sewers were diverted to Bran Sands when the sewage works there was built in 2000. Bran Sands provides a higher level of treatment than Portrack did and also treats effluents from a number of industries and most others have either closed or have better effluent treatment than they used to. That shows up in the progressive reduction in oxygen demand and ammonia loads to the estuary and in the ammonia concentrations measured at Haverton Hill.
    Thanks for that! Yes, both Greatham and Billingham Becks are below the barrage so clean those up and the estuary will clean up. Divert all the sewage downstream to the very mouth of the estuary at bran sands and improve the treatment and the estuary cleans up.

    That is really great news. The barrage seems to make no difference at all to estuary or river water quality so they can lower the gates permanently thus easing passage of fish upstream.

  9. #239

    Default

    Yes Walleye, as per NEbody's post there was a lot of sewage work ongoing prior and around the time of the barrage opening. This seems to have had a significant positive impact on the water quality in the estuary. By the trends, it seems to have remained relatively low Ammonia wise & the DO seems ok and hasn't really crashed.

    It's a shame we don't have anything around the Barrage to compare it to though, as we already know the upstream part of the Tees is pretty much pristine. I do know that they do have temperature monitoring at the Barrage as I've seen them fixing it last year, but I was told they don't trend it & it's only a realtime value.

    In conclusion, I would tend to agree that by the looks of it the trends the Barrage hasn't really contributed that much to the actually cleaning up the water. It's done a great job of turning Stockton into the watersports mecca though

    I'm interested now to know the DO levels and temperature directly upstream of the Barrage, CRT should look to provide this data imo.

  10. #240

    Default

    Haverton Hill was the site of an ICI fertiliser and Sulphuric Acid plant. Im pretty sure both of those closed in the mid 90s.

    Haverton Hill siding in the 1950s

    https://picturestocktonarchive.files.../11/t15211.jpg

Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •