https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Pearlsinperil 2026-04-07T15:44:33Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.39.7 https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Oykel&diff=38395 2017-03-01T16:27:58Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=58.044984694875, -4.8598142625997<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER OYKEL<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Oykel - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Oykel - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked - 49,000 tress planted along the target area.<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Ditch Blocking Upper Oykel - A2168792.jpg<br /> |Caption=Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2168792)<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=DSC 0236.JPG<br /> |Caption=Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2206481)<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=DSC 0245.JPG<br /> |Caption=Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2206481)<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=DSC 0246.JPG<br /> |Caption=Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2206481)<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=DSC 0249.JPG<br /> |Caption=Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2206481)<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=DSC 0250.JPG<br /> |Caption=Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2206481)<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:DSC_0250.JPG&diff=38394 2017-03-01T16:27:29Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:DSC_0249.JPG&diff=38393 2017-03-01T16:27:03Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:DSC_0246.JPG&diff=38392 2017-03-01T16:26:40Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:DSC_0245.JPG&diff=38391 2017-03-01T16:25:26Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: ditch blocking on the river Oykel - (A2206481)</p> <hr /> <div>ditch blocking on the river Oykel - (A2206481)</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:DSC_0236.JPG&diff=38390 2017-03-01T16:24:51Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2206481)</p> <hr /> <div>Ditch blocking on the River Oykel (A2206481)</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Oykel&diff=38389 2017-03-01T16:19:02Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=58.044984694875, -4.8598142625997<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER OYKEL<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Oykel - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Oykel - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked - 49,000 tress planted along the target area.<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Ditch Blocking Upper Oykel - A2168792.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Ditch_Blocking_Upper_Oykel_-_A2168792.jpg&diff=38388 2017-03-01T16:18:44Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: Map of ditch blocking in the Upper Oykel</p> <hr /> <div>Map of ditch blocking in the Upper Oykel</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Oykel&diff=38387 2017-03-01T15:04:19Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=58.044984694875, -4.8598142625997<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER OYKEL<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Oykel - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Oykel - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked - 49,000 tress planted along the target area.<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Borgie&diff=38386 2017-03-01T15:03:07Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=58.48384800516, -4.2919691564748<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER BORGIE<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Borgie - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Borgie - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked - 55280 tress planted in the target area.<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Borgie 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=River Borgie area of conservation action<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important freshwater pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Borgie 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=River Borige area of conservation action<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Evelix&diff=38385 2017-03-01T15:00:45Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.889588743916, -4.086719659972<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER EVELIX<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Evelix - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> <br /> - Reduce nutrient and sediment input from diffuse pollution sources in the River Evelix - the Evelix catchment will be surveyed, using established best practice methods, to establish potential diffuse pollution sources and their likely impacts on freshwater pearl mussel populations. The survey work will identify the key strategic points within the catchment where concrete conservation action to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs will be most appropriate. This will be delivered through SRDP schemes.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Evelix - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked - 3720 trees planted in the target area.<br /> <br /> Reduce nutrient and sediment input from diffuse pollution sources in the River Evelix - the Evelix catchment will be surveyed, using established best practice methods, to establish potential diffuse pollution sources and their likely impacts on freshwater pearl mussel populations. The survey work will identify the key strategic points within the catchment where concrete conservation action to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs will be most appropriate. This will be delivered through SRDP schemes - pearl mussel surveys were undertaken at 16 locations over a wide area of the Evelix catchment. this facilitated a great understanding of the spatial distribution and abundance of pearl mussels in the catchment.<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_South_Esk&diff=38384 2017-03-01T14:54:29Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=56.866602975826, -3.17319488473<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Esk District Salmon Fishery Board, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA),<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril logo<br /> |Project summary=The River South Esk is designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of freshwater pearl mussel and Atlantic salmon. It is presently assessed as being in ‘unfavourable’ condition by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). ‘Pearls in Peril’ is a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel. The project undertook to restore sections of the River South Esk and an important tributary the 'White Water'. A study was commissioned to assess the impact of identified bank protection works on natural river processes and habitats important to the freshwater pearl mussel, prioritise sites for restoration and provide restoration designs.<br /> <br /> A total of 21 bank protection sites in the upper river have previously been identified as impacting natural river processes since their construction during the 1990s. These are similar in appearance and purpose, comprising of large rock armour located on meander bends. They are present along three reaches of the upper River South Esk catchment, with nine at Moulzie in upper Glen Clova, eight at Acharn on the White Water upstream the confluence with the River South Esk, and four at Braedownie downstream of Acharn. There are no recorded populations of freshwater pearl mussel in these three river reaches, however downstream populations are influenced by the supply of suitable sediment from these reaches and by the health of the salmonid population.<br /> <br /> Following stakeholder engagement,achieving all relevant licences and implementing necessary environmental protection measures; PIP removed 13 sections of rock armour river bank protection followed by bank reprofiling at Moulzie, Acharn and Braedownie as well as the re-connection of three paleochannels - one at Moulzie and two at Acharn on the main stem River South Esk and its tributary the White Water extending to 873m of in-stream river restoration work.<br /> <br /> RIVER SOUTH ESK SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS<br /> - Facilitate and implement improved riparian habitat in the River South Esk - work with land managers to develop SRDP riparian planting schemes on the River South Esk.<br /> - Implement in-stream restoration works in the River Dee and South Esk - Both the Dee and the South Esk are large rivers with a long history of human intervention and management. This has led to degraded in-steam habitat which is adversely affecting both pearl mussels and salmonids. For example, weirs and rock bank protection can interfere with sediment transport or supply processes and reduce the area of available pearl mussel habitat. Within the River Dee, work at eight priority sites will be delivered in this project, and six priority sites will be tackled on the South Esk. Work will include developing detailed design plans, managing contractors to deliver the work and pre and post monitoring of the sites to assess their impact.<br /> - Reduce nutrient and sediment input from diffuse pollution sources in the River Dee and South Esk - The River Dee and the South Esk have been identified as priority catchments for tackling diffuse pollution. Work with land-managers will aim to promote changes in land management activities which can reduce diffuse pollution. For example, encouraging land managers to create un-cropped and un-grazed riparian buffer strips. Where relevant, other diffuse pollution reduction activities will be promoted, such as constructed farm wetlands to filter run-off from steadings and alternative stock-watering systems. This will be delivered through SRDP schemes.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Riparian enhancement - 30,365 tress planted along the riparian zone of the river.<br /> <br /> In stream restoration - The work was completed in August 2015. Monitoring work is now underway and being implemented by the Esk District Salmon Fishery Board. Following large floods in December 2015 initial observations are showing a wider channel, improved composition of river substrates, availability of new salmonid spawning habitat, channel has become more sinuous.<br /> <br /> Reduce nutrient and sediment input from diffuse pollution - 22 land managers were engaged, awareness raising workshop was held, and &gt;20km of water margin fencing was facilitated across the target area.<br /> |Lessons learn=The timescales involved from conception to completion were longer than anticipated. The site presents a range of environmental sensitivities and land uses that required further consideration as part of the planning and physical works processes.<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP South Esk 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site<br /> |Name=River South Esk<br /> |Heavily modified water body=No<br /> |Protected species present=No<br /> |Invasive species present=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Project background}}<br /> {{Motivations}}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP South Esk 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=PIP White Water River South Esk Feb 2015 Photos.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information<br /> |Information=In addition to in-stream restoration, Pearls in Peril (PIP) has worked with a local landowner to implement an agri-environment scheme creating 12ha of wet woodland. PIP successfully applied for additional funding from Angus Environment Trust and with landowner permissions completed fencing and tree planting along 7km of the Quharity Burn, a main tributary of the South Esk. <br /> }}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Spey&diff=38383 2017-03-01T14:35:45Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Approved<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.007931587329, -4.5965251838788<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Contact organisation=SNH<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk/<br /> |Partner organisations=RAFTS, Forestry Commission,<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE+ GB Project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER SPEY<br /> <br /> - Facilitate and implement improved riparian habitat in the River Spey - 17.5km of riparian enhancements was carried out.<br /> <br /> - Work with land managers to develop Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) riparian planting schemes on the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Monitor changes in pearl mussel and salmonid populations. Pearl mussels are very slow-growing. It is not expected that statistically significant increases in pearl mussel populations will be seen during the short life-time of this project. However, a number of 'proxy' measures will be used to ascertain whether conditions have improved for pearl mussels. Some baseline monitoring of mussel populations will take place, to ensure that meaningful comparisons can be made with data gathered in the future and to ensure that actions are properly targeted. Salmonids are much shorter-lived and their numbers can be expected to respond much more quickly to improvements in habitat conditions. Monitoring of freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid populations will take place prior to the implementation of the conservation actions. Repeat monitoring of salmonid populations will take place after the conservation actions to establish the extent of improvement.<br /> <br /> -<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site<br /> |Name=River Spey<br /> |Heavily modified water body=No<br /> |Protected species present=No<br /> |Invasive species present=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Project background}}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=poor salmonid habitat; to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=improved riparian habitat<br /> |Social measures='Pearls in the Classroom' education programme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38382 2017-03-01T14:30:05Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future. In total, ~113,370 tress were planted.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=• Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=PiP Project Officer Steff Ferguson checking out tree enclosures along the River Dee.jpg<br /> |Caption=PiP project officer checking out tree enclosures at River Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian tree establishment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references<br /> |Link=www.riverdee.org.uk/<br /> |Description=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Oykel&diff=38372 2017-02-09T12:05:59Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=58.044984694875, -4.8598142625997<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER OYKEL<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Oykel - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Oykel 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Naver&diff=38371 2017-02-09T11:58:47Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Approved<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=58.388141937673, -4.1980819660239<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER NAVER<br /> <br /> - Facilitate and implement improved riparian habitat in the River Naver - work with land managers to develop SRDP riparian planting schemes on the River Naver, focusing on the restoration of wooded riparian zones through a combination of natural regeneration and planting of native tree species.<br /> <br /> - Implement in-stream restoration works in the River Naver - the targeted removal of man-made structures, which are known to be impeding natural sediment transport and flow patterns, will be completed in the main stem of the Rivers Naver and Mallart. In-stream restoration will be undertaken at six priority sites and will include developing detailed design plans, managing contractors to deliver the work and pre and post monitoring of the sites to assess their impact. The actions are likely to include the removal or disruption of weirs, the reconnection of flood flow channels, restoration of alluvial fans, and the removal of hard bank protection and in-stream croys.<br /> <br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Naver 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site<br /> |Name=River Naver<br /> |Heavily modified water body=No<br /> |Protected species present=No<br /> |Invasive species present=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Social measures=Agricultural and environmental schemes for land managers<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Naver 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Evelix&diff=38370 2017-02-09T11:56:03Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.889588743916, -4.086719659972<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER EVELIX<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Evelix - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> <br /> - Reduce nutrient and sediment input from diffuse pollution sources in the River Evelix - the Evelix catchment will be surveyed, using established best practice methods, to establish potential diffuse pollution sources and their likely impacts on freshwater pearl mussel populations. The survey work will identify the key strategic points within the catchment where concrete conservation action to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs will be most appropriate. This will be delivered through SRDP schemes.<br /> <br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Borgie&diff=38369 2017-02-09T11:53:52Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=58.48384800516, -4.2919691564748<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER BORGIE<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the River Borgie - commercial forestry within riparian zones will be replaced with native riparian woodland and old forestry drainage ditches will be blocked.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Borgie 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=River Borgie area of conservation action<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important freshwater pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Borgie 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=River Borige area of conservation action<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_Mingary_Burn&diff=38368 2017-02-09T11:51:44Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=56.605946046949, -6.1758669352275<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Danielle<br /> |Main contact surname=Casey<br /> |Main contact id=CLDC1<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Pip logo.png<br /> |Picture description=PiP logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON MINGARRY BURN<br /> <br /> - Implement improved riparian habitat in the Mingarry Burn - Native broad-leaved trees will be planted along river banks covering approximately 20 hectares of the Mingarry catchment.<br /> <br /> - Implement in-stream restoration works in the Mingarry Burn - manual installation of woody debris at a minimum of four sites in the Mingarry Burn will be completed to improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids. A man-made weir at the upstream limit of the SAC has been identified as a barrier to fish passage (the weir is the impoundment that creates ‘Loch an Torr'). The installation of timber baffles on this weir will help improve the passage of migrating salmonids.<br /> <br /> - Monitor changes in pearl mussel and salmonid populations - pearl mussels are very slow-growing. It is not expected that statistically significant increases in pearl mussel populations will be seen during the short life-time of this project. However, a number of 'proxy' measures will be used to ascertain whether conditions have improved for pearl mussels. Some baseline monitoring of mussel populations will take place, to ensure that meaningful comparisons can be made with data gathered in the future and to ensure that actions are properly targeted. Salmonids are much shorter-lived and their numbers can be expected to respond much more quickly to improvements in habitat conditions. Monitoring of freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid populations will take place prior to the implementation of the conservation actions. Repeat monitoring of salmonid populations will take place after the conservation actions to establish the extent of improvement.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=PIP - Mingarry Burn.jpg<br /> |Caption=PiP - Mingarry Burn<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background}}<br /> {{Motivations}}<br /> {{Measures}}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Spey&diff=38367 2017-02-09T11:47:41Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Approved<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.007931587329, -4.5965251838788<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Contact organisation=SNH<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk/<br /> |Partner organisations=RAFTS, Forestry Commission,<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE+ GB Project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER SPEY<br /> <br /> - Facilitate and implement improved riparian habitat in the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Work with land managers to develop Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) riparian planting schemes on the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Monitor changes in pearl mussel and salmonid populations. Pearl mussels are very slow-growing. It is not expected that statistically significant increases in pearl mussel populations will be seen during the short life-time of this project. However, a number of 'proxy' measures will be used to ascertain whether conditions have improved for pearl mussels. Some baseline monitoring of mussel populations will take place, to ensure that meaningful comparisons can be made with data gathered in the future and to ensure that actions are properly targeted. Salmonids are much shorter-lived and their numbers can be expected to respond much more quickly to improvements in habitat conditions. Monitoring of freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid populations will take place prior to the implementation of the conservation actions. Repeat monitoring of salmonid populations will take place after the conservation actions to establish the extent of improvement.<br /> <br /> -<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site<br /> |Name=River Spey<br /> |Heavily modified water body=No<br /> |Protected species present=No<br /> |Invasive species present=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Project background}}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=poor salmonid habitat; to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=improved riparian habitat<br /> |Social measures='Pearls in the Classroom' education programme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Spey&diff=38366 2017-02-09T11:46:52Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Approved<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.007931587329, -4.5965251838788<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Contact organisation=SNH<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk/<br /> |Partner organisations=RAFTS, Forestry Commission,<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE+ GB Project<br /> |Multi-site=Yes<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER SPEY<br /> <br /> - Facilitate and implement improved riparian habitat in the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Work with land managers to develop Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) riparian planting schemes on the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Monitor changes in pearl mussel and salmonid populations. Pearl mussels are very slow-growing. It is not expected that statistically significant increases in pearl mussel populations will be seen during the short life-time of this project. However, a number of 'proxy' measures will be used to ascertain whether conditions have improved for pearl mussels. Some baseline monitoring of mussel populations will take place, to ensure that meaningful comparisons can be made with data gathered in the future and to ensure that actions are properly targeted. Salmonids are much shorter-lived and their numbers can be expected to respond much more quickly to improvements in habitat conditions. Monitoring of freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid populations will take place prior to the implementation of the conservation actions. Repeat monitoring of salmonid populations will take place after the conservation actions to establish the extent of improvement.<br /> <br /> -<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site<br /> |Name=River Spey<br /> |Heavily modified water body=No<br /> |Protected species present=No<br /> |Invasive species present=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Project background}}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=poor salmonid habitat; to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=improved riparian habitat<br /> |Social measures='Pearls in the Classroom' education programme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Spey&diff=38365 2017-02-09T11:45:52Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Approved<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.007931587329, -4.5965251838788<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Contact organisation=SNH<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk/<br /> |Partner organisations=RAFTS, Forestry Commission,<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=Yes<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER SPEY<br /> <br /> - Facilitate and implement improved riparian habitat in the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Work with land managers to develop Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) riparian planting schemes on the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Monitor changes in pearl mussel and salmonid populations. Pearl mussels are very slow-growing. It is not expected that statistically significant increases in pearl mussel populations will be seen during the short life-time of this project. However, a number of 'proxy' measures will be used to ascertain whether conditions have improved for pearl mussels. Some baseline monitoring of mussel populations will take place, to ensure that meaningful comparisons can be made with data gathered in the future and to ensure that actions are properly targeted. Salmonids are much shorter-lived and their numbers can be expected to respond much more quickly to improvements in habitat conditions. Monitoring of freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid populations will take place prior to the implementation of the conservation actions. Repeat monitoring of salmonid populations will take place after the conservation actions to establish the extent of improvement.<br /> <br /> -<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site<br /> |Name=River Spey<br /> |Heavily modified water body=No<br /> |Protected species present=No<br /> |Invasive species present=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Project background}}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=poor salmonid habitat; to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=improved riparian habitat<br /> |Social measures='Pearls in the Classroom' education programme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Spey&diff=38364 2017-02-09T11:40:35Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Approved<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.007931587329, -4.5965251838788<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=In progress<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Environmental flows and water resources, Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Contact organisation=SNH<br /> |Contact organisation url=www.snh.gov.uk/<br /> |Partner organisations=RAFTS, Forestry Commission,<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=Yes<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril logo<br /> |Project summary=What’s important about PIP?<br /> <br /> Great Britain contains a significant quantity of the known breeding populations of freshwater pearl mussel in Europe. The PIP Project has crucial implications for the whole of the EU. Without this project, it is likely that mussel populations in Britain will continue to decline with possible extinction in many rivers. Given the importance of the British populations in a European and global context, their loss would have a catastrophic impact on the overall survival of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe.<br /> <br /> It is essential that we work together to improve our water courses to give this amazing animal a chance of survival. This ancient and internationally protected species cleans our rivers and can live for over 100 years. Improving watercourses not only helps freshwater pearl mussel, it also benefits the whole river ecosystem. PIP will raise awareness of the issues and work with local communities, landowners and managers to make changes that will safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> Who we are……<br /> <br /> ‘Pearls in Peril’ (PIP) is a UK wide LIFE nature project with 22 partners working together to restore river habitats benefiting freshwater pearl mussel and salmonids (salmon and trout). The project was approved by LIFE in September 2012 and will run until September 2016. A total of 48 actions will be delivered across 21 rivers designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for freshwater pearl mussel.<br /> <br /> What are our aims.....<br /> <br /> The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is declining dramatically throughout its range and is under grave threat within Great Britain. Mussel populations have been affected by multiple issues, including wildlife crime, habitat degradation and declining water quality. This project will help to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain by tackling these threats and implementing best practice conservation methods. The project has the following aims:<br /> <br /> 1. To RESTORE the habitat of freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids in selected river catchments within Great Britain.<br /> <br /> 2. To SECURE the long term survival of existing freshwater pearl mussel populations and prevent their further degradation.<br /> <br /> 3. To COMMUNICATE with local, national and international audiences to raise awareness of freshwater pearl mussel conservation issues.<br /> <br /> What are we doing to RESTORE habitat......<br /> <br /> We are promoting and facilitating the use of suitable agri-environment schemes by land managers and are using these schemes to implement riparian tree planting and the fencing of river banks to improve bank stability and reduce silt input to the water course.<br /> <br /> Sites have been identified for in stream restoration that will most benefit pearl mussels and salmonids (Atlantic salmon and trout). This involves seeding river beds with gravel and removing artificial river structures such as croys and weirs to reinstate river bed habitat for juvenile mussels and fish.<br /> <br /> In areas where commercial forestry takes place, and which was planted prior to the use of current good practice guidance, silt run-off can cause significant damage to potential freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid habitat. Riparian tree planting using native broadleaves will occur and man-made drainage ditches will be blocked to reduce silt and nutrient run-off and improve water quality.<br /> <br /> Some catchments have high levels of silt and nutrient enriched water draining off the slopes into the river. A series of strategically positioned ponds and wetlands will be created to intercept enriched run-off before it reaches the river to improve water quality.<br /> <br /> How do we SECURE the long term survival of freshwater pearl mussel.......<br /> <br /> A seasonal Riverwatcher is employed to develop a ‘riverwatcher’ scheme in selected catchments within Scotland where illegal pearl fishing and unauthorised river works are still a threat. The scheme will raise awareness of the threats to the freshwater pearl mussel and will undertake coordinated action to prevent and report illegal activity.<br /> <br /> In some rivers pearl mussel populations are too small for natural recovery to be guaranteed. The PIP project is collecting mussel larvae (glochidia) and introducing the larvae onto the gills of young salmon and trout (encystment) to mimic the natural lifecycle of the mussel and increase the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel population.<br /> <br /> What tools are being used to COMMUNICATE........<br /> <br /> To promote awareness of the freshwater pearl mussel amongst the younger generation an educational programme 'Pearls in the Classroom' is being delivered across selected catchments. This will also help to deliver the objective of securing populations by encouraging local families to recognise the damage that illegal activities can cause.<br /> <br /> A range of dissemination events will take place throughout the project. These will focus on different audiences and will raise awareness of the actions taken during the project and how they can be applied more widely.<br /> <br /> It will include the delivery of presentations, seminars and interpretation material and the organising of a final project conference.<br /> <br /> Monitoring work is being implemented to ensure the project delivers its expected results as well as adequately monitors the project impacts. Monitoring will include:<br /> •water quality;<br /> •habitat;<br /> •freshwater pearl mussels;<br /> •host salmonids; and<br /> •levels of uptake and implementation of habitat restoration measures.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LIFE Administrative data:<br /> <br /> Project reference LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383<br /> Duration 03-SEP-2012 to 02-SEP -2016<br /> Total budget 4,617,398.00 €<br /> EU contribution 2,293,990.00 €<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIONS ON THE RIVER SPEY<br /> <br /> - Facilitate and implement improved riparian habitat in the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Work with land managers to develop Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) riparian planting schemes on the River Spey.<br /> <br /> - Monitor changes in pearl mussel and salmonid populations. Pearl mussels are very slow-growing. It is not expected that statistically significant increases in pearl mussel populations will be seen during the short life-time of this project. However, a number of 'proxy' measures will be used to ascertain whether conditions have improved for pearl mussels. Some baseline monitoring of mussel populations will take place, to ensure that meaningful comparisons can be made with data gathered in the future and to ensure that actions are properly targeted. Salmonids are much shorter-lived and their numbers can be expected to respond much more quickly to improvements in habitat conditions. Monitoring of freshwater pearl mussel and salmonid populations will take place prior to the implementation of the conservation actions. Repeat monitoring of salmonid populations will take place after the conservation actions to establish the extent of improvement.<br /> <br /> - <br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site<br /> |Name=River Spey<br /> |Heavily modified water body=No<br /> |Protected species present=No<br /> |Invasive species present=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Project background}}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=poor salmonid habitat; to safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=improved riparian habitat<br /> |Social measures='Pearls in the Classroom' education programme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Upper 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Upper Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Spey Lower 30 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=In-stream restoration and area of conservation action on the Lower Spey<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38363 2017-02-09T11:32:00Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=PiP Project Officer Steff Ferguson checking out tree enclosures along the River Dee.jpg<br /> |Caption=PiP project officer checking out tree enclosures at River Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian tree establishment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references<br /> |Link=www.riverdee.org.uk/<br /> |Description=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:PiP_Project_Officer_Steff_Ferguson_checking_out_tree_enclosures_along_the_River_Dee.jpg&diff=38362 2017-02-09T11:31:18Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: Pearlsinperil uploaded a new version of &amp;quot;File:PiP Project Officer Steff Ferguson checking out tree enclosures along the River Dee.jpg&amp;quot;</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:PiP_Project_Officer_Steff_Ferguson_checking_out_tree_enclosures_along_the_River_Dee.jpg&diff=38361 2017-02-09T11:30:12Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38360 2017-02-06T14:40:40Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian tree establishment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references<br /> |Link=www.riverdee.org.uk/<br /> |Description=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38359 2017-02-06T14:36:26Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian tree establishment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> |Result=Improvement<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38358 2017-02-06T14:34:16Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38357 2017-02-06T14:33:50Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38356 2017-02-06T14:33:25Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38355 2017-02-06T14:33:20Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38354 2017-02-06T14:33:16Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38353 2017-02-06T14:32:51Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38352 2017-02-06T14:32:14Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38351 2017-02-06T14:31:33Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38350 2017-02-06T14:30:55Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38349 2017-02-06T14:29:06Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Temperature<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38348 2017-02-06T14:28:29Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=Yes<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38347 2017-02-06T14:27:01Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=Bank restoration, removal of croys and embankments,replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting, water margin fencing<br /> |Management interventions=Diffuse pollution mitigation<br /> |Social measures=Raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face among land managers and river users, engagement with schools<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38346 2017-02-06T14:24:50Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of pearl mussel populations in the River Dee<br /> |Hydromorphological quality elements=Instream &amp; bankside modifications<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid habitat &amp; abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=Water temperatures, diffuse pollution<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=removal of croys and replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting,<br /> |Management interventions=reduce diffuse water poluution<br /> |Social measures=raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face and reduce criminal acitivity thorugh Riverwatch scheme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38345 2017-02-06T14:22:32Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Reach length directly affected=&gt;100km<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> |Funding sources=SRDP, PiP LIFE EU funding, Woodland Trust<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=removal of croys and replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting,<br /> |Management interventions=reduce diffuse water poluution<br /> |Social measures=raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face and reduce criminal acitivity thorugh Riverwatch scheme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38344 2017-02-06T14:20:09Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> |Works started=2013/03/01<br /> |Works completed=2017/01/31<br /> |Project completed=2017/03/02<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=removal of croys and replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting,<br /> |Management interventions=reduce diffuse water poluution<br /> |Social measures=raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face and reduce criminal acitivity thorugh Riverwatch scheme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38343 2017-02-06T14:15:16Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=January 2017 PiP Planting Overview.pdf<br /> |Caption=Map of Upper Dee riparian tree planting areas<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=removal of croys and replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting,<br /> |Management interventions=reduce diffuse water poluution<br /> |Social measures=raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face and reduce criminal acitivity thorugh Riverwatch scheme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:January_2017_PiP_Planting_Overview.pdf&diff=38342 2017-02-06T14:13:40Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38341 2017-02-06T14:10:19Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20170110 019.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, Slugain Burn after restoration, river bed renaturalised<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=removal of croys and replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting,<br /> |Management interventions=reduce diffuse water poluution<br /> |Social measures=raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face and reduce criminal acitivity thorugh Riverwatch scheme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:WP_20170110_019.jpg&diff=38340 2017-02-06T14:09:43Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38339 2017-02-06T14:07:59Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg<br /> |Caption=Upper Dee, small tree enclosure 3 years after planting<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=removal of croys and replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting,<br /> |Management interventions=reduce diffuse water poluution<br /> |Social measures=raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face and reduce criminal acitivity thorugh Riverwatch scheme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=File:WP_20150925_11_25_39_Pro.jpg&diff=38338 2017-02-06T14:07:30Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: Pearlsinperil uploaded a new version of &amp;quot;File:WP 20150925 11 25 39 Pro.jpg&amp;quot;</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Pearlsinperil https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Pearls_in_Peril_LIFE%2B_GB_Project_-_River_Dee&diff=38337 2017-02-06T14:06:34Z

<p>Pearlsinperil: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Case study status<br /> |Approval status=Draft<br /> }}<br /> {{Location<br /> |Location=57.070143686024394, -2.7853426337242126<br /> }}<br /> {{Project overview<br /> |Status=Complete<br /> |Project web site url=www.pearlsinperil.org.uk/<br /> |Themes=Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Water quality<br /> |Country=Scotland<br /> |Main contact forename=Jackie<br /> |Main contact surname=Webley<br /> |Main contact id=Pearlsinperil<br /> |Contact organisation=Scottish Natural Heritage<br /> |Contact organisation url=http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/<br /> |Partner organisations=Dee District Salmon Fishery Board, Dee Catchment Partnership, Cairngorms National Park, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)<br /> |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Pearls in Peril LIFE project<br /> |Multi-site=No<br /> |Project picture=Piplogo.png<br /> |Picture description=Pearls in Peril project logo<br /> |Project summary=‘Pearls in Peril’(2013-2017) was a UK-wide project to safeguard the future of the freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM), a species critically endangered in Europe. This project focused on the most significant populations in Great Britain and addressed the species’ most significant pressures. One of the key rivers targeted in Scotland was the River Dee in Aberdeenshire, designated as a Special Area of Conservation with internationally important populations of FWPM and Atlantic salmon, a key species involved in the mussels’ lifecycle. <br /> <br /> In the Dee catchment, the project aimed to tackle 3 main issues affecting FWPM: <br /> <br /> 1. Morphology – instream and bankside habitat<br /> <br /> 2. Diffuse pollution from agricultural causes in the middle catchment causing siltation and water quality issues<br /> <br /> 3. Increasing water temperatures in the upper catchment, caused by climate change. <br /> <br /> <br /> MORPHOLOGY: <br /> <br /> The project identified sections of the River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne, Sluie/Commonty , Braemar (Mar Lodge)and the Slugain Burn for in-stream restoration works. Works were directly funded through the Pearls in Peril Porject.<br /> The River Dee at Banchory, Aboyne and Sluie/Commonty was characterised by numerous croys. The croys were mostly built during the 1990s, using instream boulders, to improve conditions for salmon fishing. However, the croys proved ineffective for fisheries improvements, and in addition to damaging the riverbed habitat when they were built, they also resulted in scour and changes to substrate composition. Pearls in Peril has removed a total of 27 croys and re-distributed the boulders back into the river channel. This work has restored approximately 18,000m2 of river bed habitat. The removal of the croys, in particular the larger paired croys, creates more natural channel hydraulics and sediment transport. Replacement of the boulders from the croys on the bed has covered approximately 25% of the main sub-reach and will benefit freshwater pearl mussels through stabilising the bed substrate and creating hydraulic refugia. Boulder placement also provides these benefits and improves habitat for juvenile salmon.<br /> <br /> The Car Bank, Mar Lodge, Braemar was an embankment constructed in the 1980s with a range of materials including local spruce trees, railway sleepers, corrugated iron, approx. 30 old cars, large quantities of concrete, rocks and boulders. Corrugated iron facing has been used so that ice would be less likely to become pinned up against the embankment. Pearls in Peril has undertaken controlled removal of the waste materials and re-profiled 90m of bank, thus re-connecting the River Dee with its flood plain and restoring natural process that will improve habitat for freshwater pearl mussels and salmonids.<br /> <br /> The lower reach of the Slugain Burn, a tributary to the Dee just east of Braemar, had been subject to historical alteration including straightening and dredging, and was heavily constrained by embankments. To restore connectivity with the adjacent floodplain and help re-establish natural processes, embankments were removed and relict channels reinstated. <br /> <br /> <br /> DIFFUSE POLLUTION:<br /> <br /> Pearls in Peril worked with farmers along 4 major tributaries to the River Dee, to secure the creation of buffer strips and other beneficial management along watercourses to mitigate diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. The targeted burns were located in the middle reaches of the catchment, characterised by improved farmland, mixed cropping and livestock production.<br /> The main funding source for the works was through Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) agri-environment schemes, with project officers supporting farmers to apply for the funding. Where such funding was not feasible, Pearls in Peril bridged the gap through direct financing of works.<br /> <br /> In total, 38km of water margins were fenced off to prevent livestock accessing banks and causing erosion by poaching and dunging in the water. A generous riparian buffer will also aid catching of run-off, mitigating diffuse pollution from agricultural operations in the field. In many cases, alternative waterings for livestock were installed, usually in the form of troughs connected to a piped water supply, and where this was not feasible, solar powered trough pumps were utilised. Management of land adjacent to watercourses was also modified through some agri-environment contract, such as sensitive grazing of wetlands and habitat mosaics, leaving stubble on arable ground overwinter and establishment of green cover crops to prevent run-off.<br /> <br /> <br /> RIPARIAN TREE PLANTING TO MITIGATE RISING WATER TEMPERATURES<br /> <br /> In the River Dee, water temperatures have risen by an average of 1.2˚C since the 1970s. Projected further increases could cause fish mortality; therefore protecting the freshwater biodiversity of the river is a priority. Planting trees to shade the water is an obvious method of working towards ‘future-proofing’ the upper catchment against these climate-change trends. On Upper Deeside, the objective was to work with farmers and estates to establish woodland along tributaries.<br /> <br /> Several estates and farms participated by planting SRDP-funded riparian woodlands, covering over 31 km of bankside. Large, deer-fenced enclosures are the preference for establishing a viable woodland habitat. However, where tributaries are located within game management areas of sporting estates, an alternative was required: small stock-fenced tree enclosures have been used as a compromise to fill the gaps. <br /> The enclosures work on the principle that the density of trees in 1.2m shelters in a confined space deters deer from jumping in – 20 native trees are planted in a 4mx4m enclosure. Although browsing of edge trees will occur, trees in the centre will be protected. Enclosures are spaced along key watercourses, concentrating where possible on stretches where maximum shading of the river can be achieved. In addition to creating shade, trees also help stabilise banks, reduce run-off and add leaf litter and woody debris. <br /> <br /> Over 1000 small enclosures have been erected along Upper Dee tributaries, benefiting over 30km of banks. Enclosures have generally been well received by their ‘hosting’ landowners, all of which are large sporting estates. Members of the public have welcomed the prospect of trees becoming established in these landscapes. <br /> <br /> The small tree-enclosures are experimental. However, they are facilitating the return of native trees to several Deeside glens that have been devoid of tree growth for generations. Any trees established successfully in these upland glens will hopefully provide a seed source for the future.<br /> |Monitoring surveys and results=Monitoring work is ongoing and being completed by the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board (electro-fishing, temperature loggers, habitat survey) and the James Hutton Institute (fixed point photography of morphology sites). <br /> <br /> At the morphology restoration sites, monitoring was limited to before and after surveys, although general habitat and electro-fishing work carried out by the DDSFB may pick up trends in the future. <br /> Establishment of riparian tree cover however is slow, especially in upland areas: monitoring of these longer-term projects is often overlooked, as it can require significant resourcing. However, it is essential to demonstrate that the restoration work is having the desired effect, and in this case monitoring will help guide further tree planting projects. <br /> <br /> On the Dee, the monitoring includes continual recording of the water temperature (every 15 minutes) at 20 sites within tree planting zones and at 20 control sites away from the tree planting. In the longer term, this will highlight the extent to which riparian shade can reduce the extreme summer temperatures. It is also expected (and hoped) that these trees will boost salmonid production and prevent further declines in juvenile fish densities that may otherwise arise from warming waters. Therefore, annual surveys of fish numbers, using electrofishing, are carried out at both tree planting and control sites. Increases in fish numbers, and the wider benefits to the river habitat, are also expected to benefit the local pearl mussel population over the long term.<br /> |Lessons learn=<br /> • Solid pre-project ground work is crucial to ensure project targets are realistic and efforts are concentrated where needed. Similarly, it is important to have good local networks &amp; connections for project officers to contact and work with land managers<br /> <br /> • Reliance on external funding (i.e. SRDP) for implementation was an issue: the project had no control over how this funding is allocated. As the farmers had to apply for and deliver the works, they had to take all the risks associated with delivery, which caused some reluctance to participate. <br /> <br /> • Scoping of barriers long before implementation, such as conflicting land designations, pre-existing management restrictions , other biodiversity and archaeology interest is very important to limit snags during delivery.<br /> <br /> • Where works were carried out using project funds, it would have been beneficial to provide contractors with templates of the information required during the procurement process, to allow them to meet the mandatory requirements more easily.<br /> <br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery}}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of instream restoration sites - Aboyne &amp; Banchory<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Caption=Map of conservation action - upper catchment<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Upper Dee Tree Enclosures.jpg<br /> |Caption=Small tree enclosures, Upper Dee, fencing in progress<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Surveying 0.jpg<br /> |Caption=Freshwater pearl mussel survey prior to instream restoration works<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Dee Croy-removal.jpg<br /> |Caption=DDSFB staff hand-winching boulders during croy removal<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study image<br /> |File name=Wide water margin, Tarland 2.JPG<br /> |Caption=Wide fenced buffer strip, SRDP funded<br /> }}<br /> {{Image gallery end}}<br /> {{Toggle button}}<br /> {{Toggle content start}}<br /> {{Case study subcatchment}}<br /> {{Site}}<br /> {{Project background<br /> |Project started=2012/09/03<br /> }}<br /> {{Motivations<br /> |Specific mitigation=To safeguard the future of the most important pearl mussel populations in Great Britain<br /> |Biological quality elements=FWPM and salmonid abundance<br /> |Physico-chemical quality elements=water quality<br /> }}<br /> {{Measures<br /> |Bank and bed modifications measure=removal of croys and replacement of boulders in river bed<br /> |Floodplain / River corridor=Riparian tree planting,<br /> |Management interventions=reduce diffuse water poluution<br /> |Social measures=raise awareness of the problems pearl mussels face and reduce criminal acitivity thorugh Riverwatch scheme<br /> }}<br /> {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Biological quality elements header}}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Invertebrates: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Biological quality element table row<br /> |Element=Fish: Abundance<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}}<br /> {{Physico-chemical quality element table row<br /> |Element=Oxygen balance<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Other responses header}}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=economic benefits<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Public awareness of river<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=river bank vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Atlantic salmon<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Channel bed morphology.<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=Riparian vegetation<br /> |Monitored before=Yes<br /> |Monitored after=Yes<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=Yes<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=fish resources<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{Other response table row<br /> |Element=ecosystems services assessment<br /> |Monitored before=No<br /> |Monitored after=No<br /> |Qualitative monitoring=No<br /> |Quantitative monitoring=No<br /> |Control site used=No<br /> }}<br /> {{End table}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents}}<br /> {{Monitoring documents end}}<br /> {{Additional Documents}}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=River Dee PIP Restoration sites 2015.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=16 01 25 Car bank, River Dee before and after photos CREDIT Steve Addy at James Hutton Institute.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Upper 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Upper Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Case study documents<br /> |File name=75106 PIP Dee Middle 29 June 2016.jpg<br /> |Description=Restoration work on the Middle Dee<br /> }}<br /> {{Additional Documents end}}<br /> {{Additional links and references header}}<br /> {{Additional links and references footer}}<br /> {{Supplementary Information}}<br /> {{Toggle content end}}</div>

Pearlsinperil