Haycock, Suite 1, Deer Park Business Centre, Eckington, Pershore, Worcestershire, WR10 3DN t +44 (0)1386 750642 e enquiries@haycock-associates.co.uk www.haycock-associates.co.uk
Hydrogeomorphological investigation of the main streams feeding into and out of Loweswater
Client
Lancaster University, The National Trust
Authors
Dr N Haycock
Date
14th May 2010
Version
final
rivers soils hydrology landscapes
Haycock Associates Limited. Registered in England No. 03934665 VAT No. GB 658 1644 14 Registered office: Red Roof, Wick Road, Little Comberton, Pershore, Worcestershire WR10 3EG. Haycock
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Loweswater Catchment 1
Loweswater Channel / Becks 2
Loweswater - Contemporary Lake Levels. 4
Loweswater - Hydrogeomorphology Initial Field Observation 6
Loweswater - Channel modification and restoration options 8
Dub and Whittern Beck Confluence 8
Dub Beck at the inflow to Loweswater 9
Dub Beck at the outflow to Loweswater 10
Dub Beck at the outflow to Loweswater 11
Summary 12
Appendix 1: Field Annotation notes with GPS coordinates (OS GB) 13
Appendix 2: Photograph thumbnail images of the October 2009 site walk. 14
Appendix 3: Catchment Area Statistics. 15 Haycock
Introduction Haycock Associates were commissioned by Lancaster University and The National Trust to undertake a hydro- geomorphological investigation of the streams into and out of Loweswater. Loweswater has been the subject of detailed hydrological and hydro-chemical investigation for a period of years, with this work being undetake by Lancaster University and the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (CEH). In the following report, we summaries the detailed field walk that was undertaken in October 2009 and subsequent analysis of the site in November 2009.
The main aims of the report are to explore the current stream dynamics and how they interact with Loweswater. From this assessment a series of channel and floodplain restoration options are explored. The report also reviews the interaction of the lake level on the geomorphology of the Becks that discharge into the Loweswater.
In the recommendations section, we present some channel restoration options that seek to enhance the freshwater habitats of the lake and channel network.
Loweswater Catchment Loweswater catchment is illustrated in figure 1 (below). The total calculated area of the catchment, based on OS digital terrain data held by the National Trust, is 14.0 km-sq. For the purposes of this report, we have assumed that the catchment consists of Dub Beck (NW basin), Holme Beck (SW basin and discharged into the mid point of loweswater), Highnook Beck (SSW basin and discharges downstream of lake, but debris fan aquifer is assumed to feed Loweswater), Whiteoak Beck (S
Figure 1: Loweswater Catchment Boundary
Whittern Beck Dub Beck Crabtree Beck
Dub Beck Holme Beck
Highnook Beck
Whiteoak Beck
1 Haycock basin) and Crabtree Beck (NE basin). These catchments supply runoff and water to Loweswaters 61.4 hectares of open water.
Loweswater Channel / Becks Of the main channels that enter Loweswater, the lower section of Dub Beck is heavily modified through channelisation and culverting of the channel. Efforts to drain the fields locally to where Dub Beck enters Loweswater seem to have occurred over a period of years, with central drains being excavated into the main floodplain, while the Beck is leated to the north of the floodplain (figure 2). Likewise, Dub Beck on leaving Loweswater (125m AOD) is heavily modified through channelisation from the lake to Maggie’s Bridge. From Maggie’s Bridge Dub beck flows into Crummock Water (96-98m AOD).
In the comments below, a key tributary of Dub Beck named Whittern Gill (flowing near Graythwaite, figure 1) is of key interest. The lower section of this Beck flows over an active debris fan and the elevation of this channel and the state of the confluence of this Beck with Dub Beck is of concern (figure 2).
Holme Beck, which drains Burnbank Fell, represents a semi natural channel form, especially above Holme Force. Below Holme force the channel has small levels of channel intervention works (revetment) but the main feature is that the channel flows over a large debris fan associated with the erosion of the high level morraine material in Holme Beck valley above the Force (waterfalls, figure 2).
Collects m) (u th Pa
P a t h
( u m
) Issues
k c a r T
k
c
a
r Major debris fan with T Confluence sediment 220.7m
R H
E N A L E G N A R elevated leated 146.6m choked.G
171.6m channel on fan. BM 137.77m
T
r a
c k Issues
BM 218.02m
Pond Askill Askill Knott
214.6m
Grange Bungalow
Iredale Place Cottage Hard rock throttle FB 129.2m
Grange Country House Hotel Iredale Place Sheepfolds Sheep Dip Waterend D u b B e c section, with k Waterend Farm
Tk
k
c BM 130.70m Swallow Barn a r Leated channel T sedimentation Waterend Waterend Cottage Issues
Spring
Tr ac upstream k
Sheepfold Darling Fell
Jenkinson Place Issues 132.6m Issues
Miresyke 208.8m Old lake shore and Sinks FB BM 197.98m m) Path (u
Loweswater Hall
ck ra stone beach evident on T the ground
Spring
Spring Drain
185.9m
137.8m
Quarry (disused)
Issues The Place
T ra ck
Issues
Hudson Place
T Loweswater r a c Sheepfold BM 130.65m k
Loweswater
T Lateral drainage anr d 161.5m a c k groundwater seeIssues page
T ra ck of largSheepfold debris fan
n ai Dr
Collects Collects Spreads Collects
Collects Collects Loweswater
123.1m Debris fan with a minimum of
D
r
a
i
n
Tr three vertical stages ack 131.7m
suggesting various lake 129.2m
Collects
ain Dr lowering periods, post
T r ac k
in a r D holocene. Issues
k c a r T Ford Contemporary knick k ec B e FB m ol H Issues point development in Loweswater
Issues
T ra ck the current channel
Holme Wood
Loweswater Fell
T
r
a
c
k
Holme Wood Evidence of former lake shore at 800-1200mm higher than current Figure 2: Annotations on Main Geomorphological Features - Dub Beck lake level.
The final 50m of Holme Beck, before entering Loweswater, is modified with revetment and also shows stages of vertical erosion into the channel bed. Relative to the 1937-1938 maps of the lake, Holme Beck seems to enter Loweswater further east. To the south of Holme Beck is Highnook Beck.
2 Haycock
123.1m
Collects
Issues
Bield
Tr ack 131.7m
129.2m
Collects
k
c
e
B Foulsyke Wood
e
e
r
t
b
a
r C Spring
D rain
)
m u (
h t a P
k c a r Pinfold T Ford Contemporary knick k ec B e FB m ol H
124.7m Issues point development in Collects Loweswater
Issues the current channel Pond
Track Holme Wood
e Beck Crabtre Crabtreebeck
High Gap Cottage
T
r Thrushbank a
c
k
Well Sheep Pen
138.4m High Thrushbank High
Thrushbank Pond Cottage Holme Wood
Waterfalls
143.0m T r a Evidence of former lake c k End of still water
(um) Path Holme Force shore at 800-1200mm Waterfalls section of Loweswater
135.9m Waterfall higher than current Loweswater and related to formHighcrosser D r a Lateral drainage and in Swan's Nest Issues lake level. lake edge as recorded Issues
T ra groundwater seepage ck Pond
k
c
a
r in the 1950's T
Pa th ( um ) of large debris fan 134.7m ) um ( th Pa
T T ra ra c Path c k (um) k 133.2m
Pa th ( D um ) u b (um) Path B e c k
Cattle Grid
Watergate Cott
137.5m The Washhouse Watergate Barn GP Watergate Farm
P a t h
( u m )
Path (um) Packhorse bridge Loweswater Fell High Nook debris fan, confluence
D u b B e c k
T major featur re a c k Maggie's Bridge
D rain
T k rack k c Issues c a e r B T rk Path a controlling the (um) P
Carling Knott Tr elevation and outflow ac Kirkgill Wood k Holme Wood
Issues
of Loweswater. ck ra T k Trac
S an d
Kirkhead
High Nook Debris Fan (est)
Kirkgate Farm
Loweswater
Carling Knott
Kirkgate
Issues ck ra T rk Pa ck Be
W W hit eo h a B k i t e
e B c e o c k k a
k
)
m
u
(
h
t
a
P
High Nook Farm
Mill Hill
Sheepfold
M o s e d a le B e W c k h i t e o a k
B e c k
Figure 3: Annotations on Main Geomorphological Features - High Nook
Highnook Beck rises on Lamplugh Fell and flows past High Nook farm building before joining Dub Beck just upstream of Maggie’s Bridge. Below High Nook Tarn, the channel enters a deep incised valley associated with erosion of morraine material. This eroded material has formed an extensive debris fan, which start locally to High Nook farm and spreads westwards to Loweswater and eastwards and down to Maggie’s Bridge. On the surface of the debris fan are a number of relic channel suggesting that Highnook Beck in the past had a more direct route to Loweswater, but this channel now flows on the eastern side of the debris fan. Joining Highnook Beck is Whiteoak Beck. This valley was not walked in October 2009, but the sediment supply from this valley system appears to have contributed to form the large debris fan that now exists at the southeastern end of Loweswater (figure 3).
Figure 4: Image of Highnook Beck (left) and Dub Beck (right) confluence at Maggie’s Bridge, October 2009.
The sediment supply was Highnook Beck seems the largest source of material movement in the valley complexes visited. Figure 4 shows the channel becks of Highnook and Dub’s Beck at Maggie’s Bridge. Highnook beck seems to be frequently scouring its bed not allowing any algae or benthic vegetation to establish, while Dub Beck (right of image) shows mature benthic algae accumulation on the stream bed.
3 Haycock
Further detailed notes on the October 2009 site inspection are to be found in Appendix 1 with corresponding images of key stream sections and floodplain images in Appendix 2.
Loweswater - Contemporary Lake Levels.
Figure 5: First Series OS map of Loweswater, c. 1860
Figure 6: OS map of Loweswater, c. 1930
4 Haycock
Issues 132.6m Issues
Miresyke 208.8m Darling Fell
Sinks FB BM 197.98m m) Path (u
Loweswater Hall
k ac Tr
Spring
Spring rain D Bield Sheepfold
185.9m
137.8m
Quarry (disused)
The Place
T ra ck
Hudson Place
T Loweswater r a c BM 130.65m k
Loweswater
T
r 161.5m a c k
Issues
Sheepfold
n ai Dr
Collects
Loweswater
Loweswater Fell
123.1m
Bield
Tr ack 131.7m
129.2m
Collects
Collects
k
c
e
B
e
e
r
t
b
a
r
C
Issues
k c a r Pinfold T Ford k ec B e FB m ol H
124.7m Issues Issues
Loweswater
Issues
T ra ck
Track Holme Wood
btree Beck Cra Crabtreebeck
High Gap Cottage
T
r Thrushbank a
c
k
Well 138.4m High Thrushbank High Thrushbank Cottage Holme Wood
Waterfalls
143.0m T r a c k
(um) Path
Holme Force
Waterfalls
Pile of Stones
135.9m
Waterfall
Loweswater
Swan's Nest
Issues
Issues
T ra ck
Pond
Pa k th c ( e um B )
e ) lm um ( o th H Pa
T T ra ra c Path c k (um) k
FB Pa th ( D um ) u b (um) Path B e c k
Cattle Grid
Sluice
Watergate Cott
Bield The Washhouse Watergate Barn Watergate Farm
P a t h
( u m )
Path (um)
Sheepfold Loweswater Fell
Figure 7: Bathometric Map of Loweswater 1937-1938, Ramsbottom A.E. (1976). Depth charts of the Cumbrian Lakes. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication No. 33. Titus Wilson & Son Ltd. Kendal. Areas in solid light blue show areas where lake shore differs between 1938 and 2009.
In figures 5-7, maps have been collated that seem to suggest that post 1938 the water level in Loweswater was lowered, resulting in the current shoreline being mapped in a different location, especially in the south east and north western shoreline. The bathometic survey of 1937-1938 and also OS maps prior to 1930 suggest that lake levels may have been 0.5-1.0m higher than the current location with the lake area reducing from 64 hectares to 61.3 hectares. This lowering may have reduced the lake volume by 7%, from an estimated 5.4 million cubic metres to 5.02 million cubic metres.
Discussions with Lancaster University and the community forum have not identified a date when this possible lake lowering occurred. It is speculated that the channelisation of Dub Beck either through the WWII years of prior to 1960’s would have been a period when drainage may have occurred.
5 Haycock
Loweswater - Hydrogeomorphology Initial Field Observation
Following the field walk in October 2009, additional digital terrain model information was secured from the National Trust and Lancaster University. This data plus additional meetings with Lancaster University, National Trust and key land owners of Loweswater has lead to the following observations.
1. The lake level of Loweswater is critically influence, in storm periods, by the flow and water level of Highnook Beck at Maggie’s Bridge.
2. National Trust staff have observed water flowing from Highnook Beck into Loweswater, when a major flood is passing though this Beck and when flows from Dub Beck and Holme Beck have not surcharged Loweswater.
3. The possible lowering of Loweswater and the channelisation of Dub Beck along the perimeter of Highnook Debris fan (figure 8) further supports the dominant role that Highnook plays in the flows from Loweswater. If high sediment loads from Highnook block the channel at Maggie’s Bridge, then water levels in Loweswater is rise.
4. The possible lowering of Loweswater appears to be represented in the creation of erosion knick points within Holme Beck, with further evidence of a higher shoreline represented in the tree line of this shore. Main trees are all present >600mm from current lake water levels.
5. At the north western end of Loweswater, Dub Beck has been extensively channelised, but evidence of a former shoreline is present in the current sedge mire (figure 9).
6. Dub Beck is not a major course sediment supply channel for Loweswater, the presence of valley mires and smaller debris fans upstream of the Grange Hotel effectively adsorb this material, with evidence of channel blockages witnessed in October 2009.
Figure 8: Annotated map of Highnook Beck and its dominance of Dub Beck, discharging from Loweswater at the norther perimeter of Highnook Debris Fan (shaded in tan).
6 Haycock
Figure 9: Image of former shoreline at Dub Beck floodplain in the north western section of Loweswater.
7 Haycock
Loweswater - Channel modification and restoration options
Dub and Whittern Beck Confluence
Proposed re-routing of Proposed woodland Dub Beck, to the west planting to aid stream of current valley mire, restoration, water
Collects m) to ensure any fine (u h at temperature control P sediment is filtered in and control of bank P a t h
( u this system prior to m e) rosion. discharge to
k c a r Loweswater. T
k
c
a
r PrT oposed re-routing of
R H Whittern Gill, away
E N A from elevated leat L E G N A R 146.6m position and discharge G to Dub Beck upstream of current debris fan.
BM 137.77m
Pond Reconnect Dub Beck into current channel at
Grange current Bridge Bungalow
Iredale Place Cottage FB No action to restore 129.2m
Grange Country House Hotel Iredale Place channel in culverted Sheepfolds Sheep Dip Waterend D section, allow system u b B e c to erode and migrate, k Waterend Farm but valley is restrictive Tk BM 130.70m Swallow Barn so no major land loss expected.
Waterend Cottage
T ra ck
Figure 10: Annotation of options to re direct Dub Beck and Whittern Beck confluence.
The option for Dub and Whittern Beck confluence is to seek to utilise the existing valley mire (figure 10), to the west of the current channel, and in doing so allow this area to become the key wetland within this section of the valley. In re directing Dub beck to the west, the confluence of Dub with Whittern should be moved, since the high sediment supply of Whittern Beck needs to be accommodated and currently this sediment is accumulating in the channel and resulting in poor drainage of three fields. The new pathway would allow additional sediment storage in the floodplain and improve habitat dynamics for the wetland mire, which would be consistently hydrated.
8 Haycock
Dub Beck at the inflow to Loweswater
No action to restore
Grange Country House Hotel channel in culverted Sheepfolds Sheep Dip Waterend D section, allow system u b B e c to erode and migrate, k Waterend Farm but valley is restrictive Tk BM 130.70m Swallow Barn so no major land loss Waterend expected.
Waterend Cottage Preserve existing Issues leated channel awaySp ring from Bridge and Grange Hotel and associated buildings.
132.6m Propose diversion of Dub Beck into current floodplain and route through the lowest land levels within the floodplain and discharge into Connect exisitng land Loweswater. Sinks FB
m) drain into new channel Path (u
Loweswater Hall
k ac Tr Maintain existing leat for local drainage of Route channel through lowest northern fields
land levels in the floodplain Spring (indicative route). Propose additional Drain woodland planting to Allow higher level sedge grass extend riparian / communities to dry out with lower shoreline woodland and drainage in the valley floor. also to aid drying out of northern fields.
The Place Allow current mire vegetation to convert from wet grassland / sedge to full valley mire Proposed new channel route and wetland to aid community. filtration of fine sediment before entering Loweswater. Channel bed to be seeded with gravel materials to aid invertebrate and fisheries communnities to better Hudson Place utilise shoreline channels.
Figure 11: Annotation of options to re direct Dub Beck into Loweswater.
The option for Dub Beck, prior to flowing into Loweswater, is to create a restored channel and floodplain. The current channel is leated to the north of the floodplain and is resulting in poor drainage of non floodplain land, but also depriving the current floodplain of water and sediment. The proposal is therefore to re define the channel in the lowest portion of the floodplain, the channel to be small and thereby allow excessive flood water to discharge over the floodplain, thus allowing water to filter through the floodplain before entering Loweswater (figure 11). The current leat would be kept to allow normal drainage of the northern fields. This option would not be impacted excessively if Loweswater lake level was raised.
9 Haycock
Dub Beck at the outflow to Loweswater
High Thrushbank High Thrushbank Cottage If Loweswater lake levels to be raised, consider creating new 143.0m outflow channel to throttle peak flows and If lake level raised, then aid dynamic water level area to be submerged, in lake. fenced off from livestock and littoral Loweswater community created.
Swan's Nest
Pond
If Loweswater level to be restored, consider D u b
B e introducing check weir c k into channel to control
Cattle Grid water levels and prevent back flooding from Highnook Beck.
The Washhouse Watergate Barn Watergate Farm
Figure 12: Annotation of options to re direct Dub Beck out flowing from Loweswater.
If there was an intension to raise the water level of Loweswater to the estimated levels prior to 1938, then it is recommended to undertake this through the use of a small check weir (or series of weirs with <200mm steps, figure 12). This weir would be served by a new smaller outflow channel, which would throttle the flow of water from Loweswater thereby allowing a more natural water level regime to be introduced into the lake.
10 Haycock
Dub Beck at the outflow to Loweswater
ck Be
W W hit eo h a B k i t e
e B c e o c k k a
k
)
m
u
(
h
t
a
P
High Nook Farm
W
h i t e o a k
B e c k
k ec B ok no gh Indiciative boundary Hi
k c a r T
Proposed area of Highnook incised
W h it e valley to be fenced and allowed to o a k B e c revet to woodland. Aim to control k sediment flux into Highnook debris fan area and also to control sedimentation of Highnook and Dub Beck confluence.
Path (um)
Figure 13: Annotation of options to reduce sediment supply from Highnook Beck.
The sediment supply and incised valley erosion in High Nook Beck needs to be controlled as the rate of sediment supply seems excessive, with stream bed erosion downstream accelerating. The current valley is used to herd sheep to Highnook farm, and the fencing of the valley needs to be associated with creating an effective livestock route to the farm and associated holding areas. The fencing of these features, as undertaken in Wharfedale (Yorkshire Dales) by the National Trust resulted in 80% of the sediment supply to the main river being reduced. Therefore we would recommend this option to the National Trust.
11 Haycock
Summary
1. The field inspection of the channels of Loweswater has revealed some contemporary erosion dynamics which we believe to be associated with the lowering to the water surface of Loweswater post 1938. This has resulted in vertical incision of the channel in Holme Beck and also some limited channel erosion on Dub Beck before it flows into Loweswater.
2. Channelisation and revetment of Dub Beck as it flows out of Loweswater, and for a small section of Holme Beck seem to be associated with drainage works post 1938. Drainage works on Dub Beck and Whittern appear to be more historical, with the culverting of Dub Beck at the Grange Hotel from a much earlier era.
3. There appear to be some options to create additional floodplain wetlands, especially on Dub Beck and Whittern Beck, which may result in the reduction of fine sediment entering Loweswater from these catchments.
4. There are not recommended options for Holme Beck, apart from allowing the current geomorphological processes to continue. The current rate of bed and back erosion may reduce locally to the shoreline if Loweswater lake level was restored.
5. Options to restore the lake level of Loweswater need to be considered relative to the dynamics of the lakes ecology and hydro-chemistry. Land owners views needs to be sought and the detailed impact of such a measure needs to be considered.
6. The fencing of the incised Highnook Beck valley needs to be strongly considered, in order to reduce sediment supply to the lower sections of the channel, before Maggie’s bridge.
12 Haycock
Appendix 1: Field Annotation notes with GPS coordinates (OS GB)
13 ID OS_X OS_Y OS_Z Map_ID Notes Photo 1 311726 522404 0 367 leated channel, left floodplain IMG_1310 2 311710 522352 0 368 floodplain ditch, dry, iron stains IMG_1309 3 311790 522360 0 369 leated channel, 1m base width, 20cm flow depth, wrack left and right IMG_1312 4 311853 522321 0 370 leated levee, woodland floodplain left IMG_1314 5 311869 522312 0 371 water scum, leat IMG_1315 6 311889 522296 0 372 flow into woodland and delta IMG_1316 IMG_1317 7 311925 522286 0 373 end of delta, base width 2m, course silt IMG_1318 IMG_1319 8 311862 522278 0 374 high level lake shore, 20m inland IMG_1320 9 311784 522276 0 375 floodplain ditch, mid point, no flow IMG_1321 10 311768 522264 0 376 boundary wall ? - 11 311721 522268 0 377 right floodplain, looking us., sedge dominated, tree planting, under story grazed IMG_1322 12 311673 522393 0 378 drain start, two piped land drains IMG_1323 13 311703 522417 0 379 left bank revetment, right break out point to floodplain IMG_1324 14 311697 522423 0 380 right break out point, top of old delta on left floodplain IMG_1325 15 311682 522442 0 381 foot bridge section of floodplain IMG_1326 IMG_1327 16 311668 522464 0 382 floodplain sediment with red silt bank, course drop zone from old delta IMG_1328 17 311656 522498 0 383 right floodplain saturated, confluence upstream - 18 311609 522583 0 384 leat channel, 3m wide, glide, channel left floodplain, tree right bank IMG_1329 19 311602 522598 0 385 right floodplain, woodland at confluence, chennel glide, no sedimentation, sedge line right bank IMG_1330 IMG_1331 20 311631 522539 0 386 right bank, old levee with trees, confluence inflow 21 311645 522514 0 387 pipe inflow, left bank from house 22 311551 522485 0 388 right confluence, 1m wide, through levee 23 311597 522623 0 389 sillage bales within 5m of confluence, barn used for hay, but was cattle IMG_1332 24 311565 522639 0 390 confluence left bank, confined valley, left and right steep bank 25 311542 522671 0 391 bed large boulders and slabs IMG_1333 26 311512 522690 0 392 first bridge, 2m base width IMG_1334 27 311456 522737 0 393 small floodplain with stone culvert drain near grange hotel IMG_1335 28 311458 522771 0 394 bridge 2, box drain, left and right floodplain, looking downstream IMG_1336 29 311408 522958 0 395 high sediment load drain, almost blind IMG_1337 30 311391 522995 0 396 leat, elevated tributary on left floodplain, bed 2m above floodplain, stile footpath IMG_1338 IMG_1339 31 311331 522959 0 397 old track to farm house, raised form IMG_1340 IMG_1341 32 311333 522990 0 398 channelised floodplain, confined floodplain, footbridge 33 311321 523031 0 399 first section of semi natural channel, meander and point bar, pool and riffle with 10cm fall IMG_1342 IMG_1343 34 311291 522935 0 400 broad channel with cattle access IMG_1344 35 311164 522956 0 401 right floodplain with channel in the tree line, 50m wide 36 311906 523010 0 402 high level plateaux mire around knoll IMG_1345 37 311972 523040 0 403 large cross slow interception drain / rill, 3m deep IMG_1346 38 312197 522717 0 404 photo of valley wall and evidence of mining, upper catchment larch and fir plantation IMG_1347 IMG_1348 IMG_1349 39 312404 522468 0 405 delta area into lowerwater, image 1353 note large delta into the lake IMG_1350 IMG_1351 IMG_1352 IMG_1353 40 312487 522238 0 406 delta on south west shore, deep incut into colluvial material, water fall IMG_1354 41 311812 522486 0 407 view back to delta IMG_1355 42 311821 522019 0 408 end on phase 1 walk 43 311830 521935 0 409 SW lake shore, phalaris stand in the lake IMG_1356 44 311838 521883 0 410 large tributary, more flow than main valley IMG_1357 IMG_1358 45 312264 521754 0 411 enter woodland, GPS off sw delta stream tributary, upstream of footbridge IMG_1359 debris field IMG_1360 sedimentation and local down cutting, knick point in channel IMG_1361 delta into lake, revetment and down cutting, knick point local to bridge IMG_1362 IMG_1363 46 312025 521517 0 412 delta of sw catchment into lake, debris field, clean stream section IMG_1364 upstream of 2nd footbridge, incised section, deposition ds. Of footbridge IMG_1365 large boulder field section IMG_1366 47 312519 520710 0 413 upper old debris fan, with secondary down cutting, 150m upstream of footbridge, water fall IMG_1367 IMG_1368 IMG_1369 IMG_1370 IMG_1371 48 312452 520319 0 414 out of woods and into High Nook IMG_1372 IMG_1373 49 312432 520214 0 415 ds. Into high nook, down cutting into the morraine IMG_1374 IMG_1375 50 312386 520141 0 416 us. Into morraine floor and carrie IMG_1376 51 312490 519966 0 417 downcut morraine, local to footbridge in high nook IMG_1377 52 312772 520396 0 418 corrie, mire images IMG_1378 IMG_1379 53 312837 520454 0 419 high nook incised channel into morraine IMG_1380 54 312837 520454 0 420 cliff in morraine, valley confluence on right IMG_1381 55 312933 520563 0 421 break in colluvial slope form, suggest delta edge form 56 312951 520587 0 422 break in colluvial slope IMG_1382 57 312985 520636 0 423 confluence on right bank, down cutting old delta form / debris fan, cross check elevation wit SW IMG_1383 IMG_1384 58 313079 520777 0 424 nook channel elevation relation to right floodplain, left debris field higher than channel IMG_1385 59 313149 520785 0 425 channel through debris fan IMG_1387 60 313174 520793 0 426 leat revetted on right bank IMG_1386 61 313198 520802 0 427 end of revet section 62 313254 520832 0 428 channel migrating right of debris fan, revetment issues 63 313424 520863 0 429 leat and old gill channel merge, junction of large valley debris fan IMG_1388 IMG_1389 64 313444 521002 0 430 loweswater bridge, us. Of confluence IMG_1390 65 313486 520948 0 431 packhorse bridge, see stream bed colour, high nook scour bed, non scour from loweswater IMG_1391 IMG_1392 66 313416 521052 0 432 stable stream bed, algae and vegeatation, fine sediment stored IMG_1393 67 313409 521132 0 433 still water section, evidence of higher relic channel, lake lowered ?, no sediment from high nook IMG_1394 68 313353 521207 0 434 channel blockage with phalaris and reed 69 313152 521298 0 435 outflow from loweswater, channelised outflow ds. Of lake, little or no littoral edege, sad lake IMG_1395 IMG_1396 IMG_1397 70 313093 521237 0 436 edge grazing IMG_1398 71 312604 521182 0 437 72 312989 520497 0 438 73 312995 520602 0 439 (um) Path
Holme Force
Waterfalls
135.9m
Waterfall
Loweswater Highcross
D r a in
Swan's Nest
Issues
Issues
Tr 435 a ck
Pond
k
c
a
r
T
Pa k th c ( e um B ) 134.7m e ) lm um ( o th H Pa 436
T T ra ra c Path c k (um) k 434 133.2m Pa th ( D um ) u b m) Path (u B e c 437 k
Cattle Grid 433
Watergate Cott
137.5m The Washhouse Watergate Barn GP Watergate Farm
P a t h
( u m )
Path (um) 432
Loweswater Fell 430
D u b B e c k
T r a c k Maggie's Bridge 431 D rain
T k rack k c Issues c a e r B T rk Path a (um) P
T Carling Knott ra Kirkgill Wood ck Holme Wood 429
Issues
ck ra T k Trac 428
S an d 424627 424 425
413
Kirkgate Farm
Loweswater
Carling Knott
Issues ck ra T rk Pa 4k 23 c Be
Issues
W W hit eo h a B 43i 9 k t e
e B c e o c k k a 422 k )
m
u
(
h
t
a P 421
High Nook Farm
438 Mill Hill
Sheepfold
M o s e d a le B e W c k 41290 h i t e o a k
B e c k
k ec B 418 ok no gh Hi
Earthwork
k c a r 414 T
W h it e o a k B e c k 415
Path (um) Carling Knott k c ra T 416
) ) m
u m u ( (
h th t a
a P
P
) Loweswater Fell m (u th Pa Level (disused) Loweswater Fell Adit
Scree
)
T
m
r u a
Levels ( c
k h
Levels t
a
P
417 399 403 402 398 396
Collects m) (u th Pa 397 395 P 401 a t h
( u m
) 400 Issues
k c a r T
k
c
a
r
T
220.7m
R H
E N A L E G N A R 146.6m G
BM 137.77m
T
r a
c k Issues 394 BM 218.02m
Pond Askill 393 Askill Knott
214.6m
Grange 404 Bungalow
Iredale Place Cottage 392 FB
129.2m 39Gra1nge Country House Hotel Iredale Place Sheepfolds Sheep Dip Waterend D u b B e c 3k 90 Waterend Farm
Tk
k
c
3B8M 130.70m9 a Swallow Barn r
T 385 Waterend Waterend Cottage 384 Issues Spring
T ra ck 386 Sheepfold
Jenkinson Place Issues 387 132.6m Issues Miresyke 383 208.8m 388 407 382 405 Sinks FB BM 197.98m m) Path (u 381
Loweswater Hall
k 380 ac Tr 379 378367
368 369 Spring Spring Drain
370 185.9m 371 137.8m 372
373 Quarry 375 374 (disused) Issues 377 The Place 376
T ra 406 ck
Issues
Hudson Place
T r Loweswater a c BM 130.65m k
Loweswater
T
r 161.5m a c k
Issues
Sheepfold
n ai Dr
Collects 408 Collects Spreads
Loweswater 409
410
Tr ack
Collects
T ra 411 c k
Issues
k c a r T Ford
k ec B e FB m ol H
Issues
Loweswater
Issues
T ra ck
Holme Wood
T
r
a
c k 412
Holme Wood
Waterfalls
T r a c k
(um) Path
Holme Force
Waterfalls
Pile of Stones
Waterfall
Issues
Issues
T ra ck
Pa k th c ( e um B )
e ) lm um ( o th H Pa
T T ra ra c Path c k (um) k
FB Pa th ( um ) ) Path (um 437
Sluice
Bield Haycock
Appendix 2: Photograph thumbnail images of the October 2009 site walk. For locations and coordinates of images see Appendix 1
14 IMG_1309 IMG_1310 IMG_1311
IMG_1312 IMG_1313 IMG_1314
IMG_1315 IMG_1316 IMG_1317
IMG_1318 IMG_1319 IMG_1320 IMG_1321 IMG_1322 IMG_1323
IMG_1324 IMG_1325 IMG_1326
IMG_1327 IMG_1328 IMG_1329
IMG_1330 IMG_1331 IMG_1332 IMG_1333 IMG_1334 IMG_1335
IMG_1336 IMG_1337 IMG_1338
IMG_1339 IMG_1340 IMG_1341
IMG_1342 IMG_1343 IMG_1344 IMG_1345 IMG_1346 IMG_1347
IMG_1348 IMG_1349 IMG_1350
IMG_1351 IMG_1352 IMG_1353
IMG_1354 IMG_1355 IMG_1356 IMG_1357 IMG_1358 IMG_1359
IMG_1360 IMG_1361 IMG_1362
IMG_1363 IMG_1364 IMG_1365
IMG_1366 IMG_1367 IMG_1368 IMG_1369 IMG_1370 IMG_1371
IMG_1372 IMG_1373 IMG_1374
IMG_1375 IMG_1376 IMG_1377
IMG_1378 IMG_1379 IMG_1380 IMG_1381 IMG_1382 IMG_1383
IMG_1384 IMG_1385 IMG_1386
IMG_1387 IMG_1388 IMG_1389
IMG_1390 IMG_1391 IMG_1392 IMG_1393 IMG_1394 IMG_1395
IMG_1396 IMG_1397 IMG_1398
IMG_1399 IMG_1400 IMG_1401
IMG_1402 IMG_1403 IMG_1404 IMG_1405 Haycock
Appendix 3: Catchment Area Statistics.
------Attributes of the loweswater_lake Basin ------
Outlet x-coordinate: 313277.00 Outlet y-coordinate: 521068.00 Outlet pixel ID: 219359 Outlet parent pix. ID: 219360 Outlet elevation: 128.700 (m)
Basin area: 13.968110 (km^2) Basin relief: 0.43600000 (km)
Pruning method: Area Pruning threshold: 0.000625000 Strahler order: 7 Network magnitude: 6720 Network diameter: 159 Longest channel length: 5.5612702 (km) Total channel length: 653.50745 (km) Drainage density: 46.785675 (km^-1) Source density: 481.09586 (km^-2)
------Note: The last set of attributes depend on the user-selected pruning method. ------
15