The Tummel-Garry-Gairloch Scheme was the second of the Hydro Board's constructiuonal schemes, designed during the Second World War.
Apart from arrangements below some of the major dams, not a single offtake from any tributary had any form of mitigation. All the flow was taken.
However, in the later schemes, the impacts of the Hydro Board's schemes tended to be less severe and more mitigation was provided.
For example, in the Breadlabane and Lawers schemes, which were designed in the late '40s / early '50s, and stretch from the River Lyon to the River Earn, something like 13 abstracted streams, representating about 1/3 of the total, have some form of mitigation. In most cases this means abstraction must cease at low flows although all the flow may be taken at high flows. In some instances a constant compensation flow is permitted.
This type of mitigation also seems to have been more common in the more northern hydro schemes too.
It does beg the question that if the Garry scheme had been planned ten years after the War rather than during it would a compensation flow have been agreed? |
|
In the Tummel-Garry hydro scheme, designed during wartime, none of the abstracted tributaries had any form of mitigation.
In the post-war Breadlabane Scheme, numerous offtakes had mitigation. Here on the River Almond abstraction can only occur after a set flow in the river is maintained. Autumn freshets were also incorporated to allow salmon up to spawn.
On the River Blackwater, Ross-shire, a compensation flow was maintained and although no freshets were provided, the Hydro Board paid the fishery board to stock the river with salmon eggs.
Had the Garry scheme been designed in the post-war era would there have been a compensation flow arrangement also?
|
