• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Severn river trust

Its also interesting to note that within the JBA consulting document (2013), it states how that the weirs, because of their historical industrial connections are some of the very reasons why the Teme has been given SSI status, it also acknowledges that when weirs have been removed or fell into a state of disrepair the river below the weir has suffered, because of the lack sediment control....and weirs must not be removed purely to put the river back to what it was or what they were:

2.2 Historic Evidence
Historic map evidence and legacy indicators identified during the geomorphological and
ecological audit suggests that the River Teme has been exploited for power generation
purposes for the last 300-400 years. Historic mills are frequent but often their associated weir
structures have been removed or have failed, however it is clear that these once had an
important control on the continuity of the system and influenced the natural sediment regime.
Channel indicators suggest that the bed incision downstream of Ludlow is a response to a
significant change in channel process. This could be attributed to channel reaction associated
with the weirs listed above that have been removed in the past. In combination, these could
have created impounded conditions for a significant length of the River Teme downstream of
Ludlow.
 
Clearly read what you want to read? Is that not exactly what you're doing and indeed posting? People need to read the facts and make their own mind up, not be spoon-fed just the negatives.
I'm still not entirely sure myself if it's a good or bad idea, I made the point earlier that is possible weirs do the job that beavers might have done years previous. What I am sure about is that we shouldn't hinder conservation projects purely for our own selfish desire to catch fish for the fun of it. Yes I love fishing probably as much as anyone else on here but conservation is more important in my view.
Folks are always moaning about 'do-gooder' conservationists on here, yet I dread to think what state the countryside would be in without them. What's left of it that is.
 
Rhys Perry said:
Clearly read what you want to read? Is that not exactly what you're doing and indeed posting? People need to read the facts and make their own mind up, not be spoon-fed just the negatives.
I'm still not entirely sure myself if it's a good or bad idea, I made the point earlier that is possible weirs do the job that beavers might have done years previous. What I am sure about is that we shouldn't hinder conservation projects purely for our own selfish desire to catch fish for the fun of it. Yes I love fishing probably as much as anyone else on here but conservation is more important in my view.
Folks are always moaning about 'do-gooder' conservationists on here, yet I dread to think what state the countryside would be in without them. What's left of it that is.
Click to expand...

He's just an old fuddy duddy like Dave clump it.....when you get to there age, change and trying something new is a lot to digest

Joking guys!!!!:D

I understand where we are all coming from

But I still think your missing a chance here Lawrence and to be honest any opinion from an angler on this is a good one and very much needed to get the right outcome
 
Rhys Perry said:
Clearly read what you want to read? Is that not exactly what you're doing and indeed posting? People need to read the facts and make their own mind up, not be spoon-fed just the negatives.
I'm still not entirely sure myself if it's a good or bad idea, I made the point earlier that is possible weirs do the job that beavers might have done years previous. What I am sure about is that we shouldn't hinder conservation projects purely for our own selfish desire to catch fish for the fun of it. Yes I love fishing probably as much as anyone else on here but conservation is more important in my view.
Folks are always moaning about 'do-gooder' conservationists on here, yet I dread to think what state the countryside would be in without them. What's left of it that is.
Click to expand...

Well said Rhys.

Overall I'm in favour of re-naturalising rivers, but clearly the removal of every weir and man-made obstacle must be judged on its own merits. I don't know if removing Powick Weir is a good or bad thing, but at the moment it appears to only be at the proposal stage and therefore before being taken further a full Environmental Impact Assessment will have to be produced and consulted upon.

It appears that some have already made up their mind, and due to confirmation bias are cherry picking evidence to fit their argument. This isn't in anyone's interests. For instance the same report also includes on p9, (Table 1.1) a list of 'Potential Negative Impacts' of weirs:

[*]Upstream Increased flood risk.
[*]Loss of marginal vegetation.
[*]Loss of ranunculus vegetation.
[*]Increased risk of death by drowning.
[*]Reduced biodiversity.
[*]Raised groundwater level may have negative impacts (such as restricted
drainage).
[*]Barrier to fish migration.
[*]Noise.
[*]Barrier to navigation.
[*]Reduction of water
[*]velocity upstream
[*]Algal blooms.
[*]Loss of some angling opportunities.
[*]Bank and bed erosion.
[*]Dangerous conditions for canoeists and swimmers.
[*]Trapping of debris.
[*]Siltation of channel upstream.
[*]Fish migration inhibited.

It also lists the potential positive impacts of weirs:

[*]Visual appearance.
[*]Improved amenity.
[*]Improved navigation.
[*]Improvement to some fisheries.
[*]Raised groundwater level may have positive impacts (such as improved wetland).
[*]Amenity value.
[*]Ability to measure flow accurately.
[*]Potential for power generation
[*]Safer navigation (except that the weir itself maybe a hazard).
[*]Visual appearance.
[*]Aeration of water.
[*]Attractive conditions for canoeists
[*]Opportunity to create a crossing point.

Figure 1.6 Impact of a weir on water level on p6 is interesting, I would expect a similar schematic to be included within the EIA.
 
All I can do Jason is make people aware of what is happeneing, yes I am firmly in the camp of dont remove the weir, the documents I have provided should allow individuals to make their own mind up, both documents contains for and against arguments, but you have to read them, back in the mid 90's I campaigned, with others, inc the barbel society, for the wanton destruction carried out by the NRA chainsaw teams in the name of flood defence to stop, they then accused us of not willing to change as it wasnt all about fisherman needs, we have to think of the future, we must stop contemplating our own navel and look at the bigger picture blah blah, they now recognize what a massive mistake it all was, they now are spending thousands to put back in the river "woody debris", bends in rivers and getting rid of the ubiquitous Himalayan Balsam that flourished once all the trees had been chopped down at the waters edge, I am not just against the weir removal because I am a barbel fisherman and I fear for the loss of prime barbel fishing. well for a start off, there isnt any prime barbel fishing left on the Teme these days, I am concerned about about the dramatic changes that will occur, I am concerned about the heavy metals and chemicals that are lying dormant in silt above the weir, as this will wash down into the lower Severn, god knows what damage that will do, I am concerned about the historical heritage of the weir, that dates back many 100's of years, I am concerned about the significant loss and depth water that will go, I am also concerned that whilst this whole thing is being dressed up as some well intentioned environmental project, it could be just about flood defence (again) I will leave it to you guys to choose, please read the documents I have supplied.
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
Its also interesting to note that within the JBA consulting document (2013), it states how that the weirs, because of their historical industrial connections are some of the very reasons why the Teme has been given SSI status, it also acknowledges that when weirs have been removed or fell into a state of disrepair the river below the weir has suffered, because of the lack sediment control....and weirs must not be removed purely to put the river back to what it was or what they were:

2.2 Historic Evidence
Historic map evidence and legacy indicators identified during the geomorphological and
ecological audit suggests that the River Teme has been exploited for power generation
purposes for the last 300-400 years. Historic mills are frequent but often their associated weir
structures have been removed or have failed, however it is clear that these once had an
important control on the continuity of the system and influenced the natural sediment regime.
Channel indicators suggest that the bed incision downstream of Ludlow is a response to a
significant change in channel process. This could be attributed to channel reaction associated
with the weirs listed above that have been removed in the past. In combination, these could
have created impounded conditions for a significant length of the River Teme downstream of
Ludlow.
Click to expand...

The historical and cultural importance of weirs shouldn't be understated, and I agree that it should be an important consideration.

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000102.pdf
 
I think if you said to any (especially barbel) angler that knows the Teme intimately.. "We've got an idea to lower the level of the river and speed up its flow. Will you support this project?"... the vast majority would respond with a resounding "No".
IMHO
 
Terry Simner said:
I think if you said to any (especially barbel) angler that knows the Teme intimately.. "We've got an idea to lower the level of the river and speed up its flow. Will you support this project?"... the vast majority would respond with a resounding "No".
IMHO
Click to expand...

And while your at it, why not ask them "Have you stopped beating your wife?" :D
 
How old is the weir Lawrence?
 
in its present form probably 400 to 500 years old and is described as post medieval , however it is mentioned in the Domesday book under another name, but that area goes back to Roman times, at various point in its history the Teme has many times as been desired to become part navigable, up to Powick weir and beyond, the weir in the later part of the 19th century was very much evident as the forge needed pig iron or mill needed the river to be deeper or diverted, so its a very historical site and thats one of the main reasons the Teme got sssi status, because of the rich historical significance it has, especially regarding local industry.

http://www.rchs.org.uk/trial/6-2 Teme.pdf
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
in its present form probably 400 to 500 years old, however it is mentioned in the Domesday book under another name, but that area goes back to Roman times, at various point in its history the Teme has many times as been desired to become part navigable, up to Powick weir and beyond, the weir in the later part of the 19th century was very much evident as the forge needed pig iron or mill needed the river to be deeper or diverted, so its a very historical site and thats one of the main reasons the Teme got sssi status, because of the rich historical significance it has, especially regarding local industry.
Click to expand...

It certainly appears that the weir is of historical importance, but that had absolutely nothing to do with it being designated as a SSSI in 1996.

The reasons for notification are detailed in the citation (see below).

Sites of historical significance are notified as either Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) or are listed on the County Historic Record (HER).

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000102.pdf
 
I don't think historical significance or local industry has anything to do with an SSSI designation Lawrence. And I can't see any species listed on Natural England's SSSI citation that are there through a weir's presence, indeed their own assessment on the condition of the 6 units that make up the Teme Valley's SSSI, are all unfavourable and listing 'inappropriate weirs' as part reason for that condition!
 
I agree it is not on the citation but Natrual England recognizes the weir as being critical and with a Historical value on what the river is today and whilst these structures are protected by other regulations, the weir is very much of the SSSI, the JBA document is a draft assessment which very supports the weirs removal and was commissioned.

The SSSI is influenced by several factors both physical, hydrological and chemical. Several units within
the SSSI remain classified at ‘unfavourable no change’ mainly due to physical system modification.
These alterations prevent the river from functioning naturally, reducing its ecological health and stopping
the SSSI from reaching its potential.

as i said in favour of the weirs removal
 
Just saw this posted on the save Powick Weir FB page by Dilip Saker:



Just received this response from Alan Jones at the EA; I have responded requesting, in writing, details of the alleged benefits to species other than shad. It is interesting, however, that their plan apparently now revolves around removing 50 per cent of the weir due to concerns over water levels.

'Dilip

'As per our previous telephone conversation our objective is to open up over 200km of historic spawning and nursery habitat on the Severn and Teme in order to improve twaite shad populations associated with the Severn Estuary SAC. As you know this will also benefit numerous other fish species.

'For the Teme, the best solution to improve the Shad population in the SAC is to remove Powick weir, but conscious of the impact this has on upstream water levels we have started looking to see whether by taking a 50% slot out of the weir we could get the same benefits for shad but also maintain some water depth upstream of the weir. It will be another few months before we know whether this is possible.

'Give me a ring in the new year if you want to discuss this further.

'Alan'.

If anyone else wants to email an objection: Alan.morris@environment-agency.gov.uk

If this results in an outcome reflecting compromise then that feels like progress doesn't it? Again, credit to Lawrence, Rich and others in putting so much energy into highlighting the issue. Reminds me a bit of the recent Lambourn campaign. Sometimes you need to shout a bit it seems if you want interests to be at least considered as part of an overall picture.
 
Whenever someone is opposed to change there are always those who argue they are standing in the way of progress and that they are old fuddy duddies. Sometimes those opposed to change are the ones that have thought things through more thoroughly. Not always, but sometimes. Returning the river to a series of riffles and pools sounds ominously like replicating the conditions on many of the UK's worst hit rivers. Comparing this exercise with similar ones in Europe is only useful if the conditions are the same, abstraction rates and predation pressures being critical.


Nick C
 
Well Nick, thats a great response and I thank you for it, whilst we have been mocked and ridiculed for our views, its us through our lobbying, that has now got the EA to rethink and to start talking about compromising, they have now acknowledged that there will be significant water loss upstream of the weir, something only a few days ago we were mocked for even suggesting on here, wheres the evidence the detractors said, well the EA have listened to us, but I still think 50% loss of the weir is too much, but we are talking and they are listening which is good.....
 
Howard Cooke said:
Just saw this posted on the save Powick Weir FB page by Dilip Saker:



Just received this response from Alan Jones at the EA; I have responded requesting, in writing, details of the alleged benefits to species other than shad. It is interesting, however, that their plan apparently now revolves around removing 50 per cent of the weir due to concerns over water levels.

'Dilip

'As per our previous telephone conversation our objective is to open up over 200km of historic spawning and nursery habitat on the Severn and Teme in order to improve twaite shad populations associated with the Severn Estuary SAC. As you know this will also benefit numerous other fish species.

'For the Teme, the best solution to improve the Shad population in the SAC is to remove Powick weir, but conscious of the impact this has on upstream water levels we have started looking to see whether by taking a 50% slot out of the weir we could get the same benefits for shad but also maintain some water depth upstream of the weir. It will be another few months before we know whether this is possible.

'Give me a ring in the new year if you want to discuss this further.

'Alan'.

If anyone else wants to email an objection: Alan.morris@environment-agency.gov.uk

If this results in an outcome reflecting compromise then that feels like progress doesn't it? Again, credit to Lawrence, Rich and others in putting so much energy into highlighting the issue. Reminds me a bit of the recent Lambourn campaign. Sometimes you need to shout a bit it seems if you want interests to be at least considered as part of an overall picture.
Click to expand...

True Howard. Sometimes you have to choose sides, and sometimes you have to learn to sit on your hands and let those with more local knowledge do the talking. The hardest part of that is ignoring the crass comments of those who are only there to cause unrest and foment as many rows as possible. Fortunately these types are often not bright enough to do a lot of harm anyway.

Whatever, back to the response from Alan Jones at the EA. He states that "'As per our previous telephone conversation our objective is to open up over 200km of historic spawning and nursery habitat on the Severn and Teme in order to improve twaite shad populations associated with the Severn Estuary SAC. As you know this will also benefit numerous other fish species.".

Now that, in case anyone was in any doubt before, perfectly illustrates the agenda behind the removal of Powick weir. The first priority they lay claim to there is to "Improve twaite shad populations". Possibly true, that being an objective of the EE directive. However, the next part is the claim that "As you know, this will also benefit numerous other fish species". Really? In the Teme? Well then, what are these 'numerous other fish species' that will benefit from it?

It certainly won't be coarse fish in the Teme, that's for sure, because the prediction is that this action and the various others in the planning stage will reduce the Teme to pools connected by riffles and fast shallows. Which is good for what you might ask? Well it's apparently good for twaite shad, and lo and behold...it works well for salmon, migratory trout and brown trout too. And there was me half tempted to believe that the accusation that the various bodies driving this action plan were game fish orientated was 'An unfair claim', as others have stated. Just goes to show doesn't it?

Cheers, Dave.
 
Great stuff Howard... Thank you for your support.
I would like to hear the Barbel Society's stance on this now that we have generated a shift in mind set. Let's face it....we are doing know what could have been done years ago by the R&C of the society!
On another note,I have emailed Dr.Tim Hill of NE for his opinion and that of the organisation on how the dropping of river levels can be conducive of a stable and unaffected SSSI. I will report back here once the detail has been posted on the Save Powick Weir Facebook page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top