Barriers to Fish Migration Prioritisation for Second RBMP Carla - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Barriers to Fish Migration Prioritisation for Second RBMP Carla - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Barriers to Fish Migration Prioritisation for Second RBMP Carla Ward River Basin Planning Co-ordinator Barrier types and numbers 173 109 97 Actives Assets Historics Current total 379 Actions since last FFAG Meeting Improved
109 97 173 Actives Assets Historics
Barrier types and numbers
Current total 379
Actions since last FFAG Meeting
- Improved prioritisation methodology
- Coordination with the CAR review process:
Cross checking and input – other objective review processes e.g. hydro and whisky
- Reflect WEF work and Scoping projects
- Coordination with morphology objective
setting process
- Develop scenarios
Objective Setting priorities – general principles
- Natura
- Length of access restored
- Habitat quality
- Catchment and individual waterbody lists
combined
- Ordering to reflect catchment position
- Headwaters / 2 m wide rule
Refinements since FFAG input
Improving barriers to fish migration
Associated with an abstraction
- r
impoundment Other asset (eg. road culvert) No current economic function (orphan) Total 109 97 173 379
CAR Engage with
- wners
Potentially WEF eligible
- Scenarios for Historics
- Current resources
- Higher level ambition
- Baseline
- Step Change 1
- Step Change 2
- Analysis tool “Spotfire”
Proposing Scenarios
BASELINE STEP CHANGE 1 STEP CHANGE 2
Historic barriers
n = 173 All barriers n = 379 (Historics, Actives and Assets) BARRIERS BY SCENARIO
Less stringent
- bjective
Step change 1 Step change 2 Baseline
Good by 2021 Good by 2027 Less stringent objective Recovery beyond 2027
Fish barrier improvements incl assets and active (379)
Example – R. Leven catchment
Example – R. Tweed catchment
Example – R. Almond catchment
Fish barrier prioritisation lists
- Propose to circulate a list to the FFAG
members at this meeting
- Handouts
- Maps printed
Delivery via iterative approach in partnership
Scoping
Technically feasible? Disproportionately costly?
Feasibility and cost benefit
Option appraisal
Action - measure
Delivery in partnership
Responsible Authorities Regulated Industry Others…
Local Authorities SNH Marine Scotland Forestry Commission Scotland Scottish Water Scottish Government Environment Agency Hydropower Aquaculture Shellfish Whisky Irrigation Agriculture and others… Interest groups e.g. catchment, lochs, LBAPS etc NAG, AAGs, FFAG, DPMAG… Rafts and Fishery Trusts RSPB Statutory INNS group Landowner groups etc
Throughout formal consultation into 2015
Active engagement 2014/15
Existing SEPA Sector leads
Next steps
- Build in gradient, if technically feasible
- Keep up to date with classification
- Work with RAFTS and fishery trusts and
- thers (eg. Asset owners) to refine list for the
final plan
- Further quality checks throughout consultation
- Scottish Government will advise on which