Case study:Peffery Project Phase 3: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
{{Case study status
|Approval status=Draft
|Approval status=Approved
}}
}}
{{Location
{{Location
Line 13: Line 13:
|Partner organisations=Moray Firth Trout Initiative, Cromarty Fisheries, Forestry Commission Scotland
|Partner organisations=Moray Firth Trout Initiative, Cromarty Fisheries, Forestry Commission Scotland
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Project summary=Phase 3 of the Peffery Project is just a small part of a larger strategic project aimed at improving in‐stream  and riparian zone habitat in the Cromarty Firth Area. The MFTI is working with Cromarty Fisheries (CF) and 
|Project picture=Mfti logo best.jpg
|Project summary=Phase 3 of the Peffery Project is just a small part of a larger strategic project aimed at improving in‐stream and riparian zone habitat in the Cromarty Firth Area. The MFTI is working with Cromarty Fisheries (CF) and 
Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) to develop collaborative projects across the area. In September a 
Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) to develop collaborative projects across the area. In September a 
project began with the Forestry Commission to trial and quantitatively monitor the effects of introducing 
project began with the Forestry Commission to trial and quantitatively monitor the effects of introducing 
Line 26: Line 27:
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Cromarty Firth
}}
{{Site}}
{{Site}}
{{Project background
{{Project background
Line 32: Line 35:
|Project started=2013/09/01
|Project started=2013/09/01
|Project completed=2014/09/01
|Project completed=2014/09/01
|Funding sources=Nineveh Trust
}}
{{Motivations
|Specific mitigation=To improve in-stream and bankside habitat
}}
{{Measures
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Introducing large woody debris,
|Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian planting, Buffer strips,
}}
}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Measures}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}
{{End table}}
{{End table}}

Latest revision as of 13:28, 14 November 2018

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 57° 36' 2.95" N, 4° 29' 2.62" 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 Complete
Project web site
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring
Country Scotland
Main contact forename -
Main contact surname -
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations Moray Firth Trout Initiative, Cromarty Fisheries, Forestry Commission Scotland
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Phase 3 of the Peffery Project is just a small part of a larger strategic project aimed at improving in‐stream and riparian zone habitat in the Cromarty Firth Area. The MFTI is working with Cromarty Fisheries (CF) and  Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) to develop collaborative projects across the area. In September a  project began with the Forestry Commission to trial and quantitatively monitor the effects of introducing  LWD along a 2km stretch of the Strath Rannoch River. This will also to be accompanied by bank side  planting with 16,000 deciduous native trees at sites where the commercial forestry has been pulled back to  create the required buffer strip at 3 sites (Strath Rannoch, Alness Blackwater and Balnagowan) . The  Forestry Commission is supplying the trees while funding has been secured from the Nineveh Trust to fund  the planting of the trees.  

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

Subcatchment:Cromarty Firth


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) 20002,000 m <br />2 km <br />200,000 cm <br />
Project started 2013/09/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2014/09/01
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Nineveh Trust

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 To improve in-stream and bankside habitat
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Introducing large woody debris
Floodplain / River corridor Riparian planting, Buffer strips
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