Case study:Gottar Water weir fish barrier easement: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 30: Line 30:
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site}}
{{Site}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background
|Project started=2015/03/01
}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Measures}}
{{Measures}}

Revision as of 16:20, 8 July 2015

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 55° 52' 2.90" N, 4° 36' 46.42" 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 http://www.rafts.org.uk/project-tenders/
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity
Country Scotland
Main contact forename Rob
Main contact surname Mitchell
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland
Contact organisation web site http://www.rafts.org.uk/
Partner organisations Quarriers Trust, Clyde River Foundation, SEPA
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Gottar water weir

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The aim of the project in the long term is to ensure fish can pass Gottar Water Weir to access the habitats upstream. Potential options to achieve this may include, but are not exclusive to, installation of a fish pass, partial removal of the structure or full removal. The objectives of this specific contract are: - to provide baseline information to a level suitable to inform options appraisal design of measures, - to list and appraise measures for easing fish passage - after discussion with the client, to produce a design for one selected measure suitable for a design and build contract.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


The weir is a clear barrier to fish migration: electric fishing data show an absence of Atlantic Salmon of any age class upstream, but presence of Salmon immediately downstream.

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



Site

Name
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
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 2015/03/01
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
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
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