Case study:Noard-Fryslân Bûtendyks Managed Realignment Scheme

0.00

(0 votes)

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

Location: 53° 20' 16.44" N, 5° 44' 18.86" E

Edit location

Loading map...

{"format":"googlemaps3","type":"HYBRID","minzoom":false,"maxzoom":false,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"limit":50,"offset":0,"link":"all","sort":[""],"order":[],"headers":"show","mainlabel":"","intro":"","outro":"","searchlabel":"... further results","default":"","import-annotation":false,"width":"auto","height":"400px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"visitedicon":"","wmsoverlay":false,"zoom":14,"layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview","rotate"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"resizable":false,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"cluster":false,"clustergridsize":60,"clustermaxzoom":20,"clusterzoomonclick":true,"clusteraveragecenter":true,"clusterminsize":2,"imageoverlays":[],"kml":[],"gkml":[""],"searchmarkers":"","fullscreen":false,"scrollwheelzoom":false,"showtitle":false,"hidenamespace":true,"template":"Location map popup","userparam":"","activeicon":"","pagelabel":false,"ajaxcoordproperty":"","ajaxquery":"","locations":[{"text":"\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Title:\u003C/b\u003E Noard-Frysl\u00e2n B\u00fbtendyks Managed Realignment Scheme\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECountry:\u003C/b\u003E \u003Ca href=\"/wiki/index.php?title=Netherlands\" title=\"Netherlands\"\u003ENetherlands\u003C/a\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EProject Status:\u003C/b\u003E Complete\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThemes:\u003C/b\u003E Habitat and biodiversity\n\u003C/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr /\u003E\n\u003C/p\u003E","title":"Noard-Frysl\u00e2n B\u00fbtendyks Managed Realignment Scheme","link":"","lat":53.337899811001,"lon":5.7385711628012,"icon":"/wiki/images/a/af/Red_marker.png"}]}

Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.

Project overview

Edit project overview

Status	Complete
Project web site
Themes	Habitat and biodiversity
Country	Netherlands
Main contact forename	Susanne
Main contact surname	Armstrong
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	ABPmer
Contact organisation web site	http://www.itfryskegea.nl/
Partner organisations	EU life, Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects	No

The managed realignment at Noard-Fryslân Bûtendyks (breaches circled)

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.

In order to implement this scheme, and buy the majority of the Noard-Fryslân Bûtendyks summer polder complex, the NGO It Fryske Gea obtained funding from the EU LIFE nature programme(some €4.5million), and match (and additional) funding from the Dutch Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Province of Friesland. WWF and It Fryske Gea raised €0.5million. The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality handled the land purchase. The objective was to transform a summer polder into a grazable saltmarsh – a semi-natural landscape with high vegetation diversity and as many (natural salt marsh) plant and animal species as possible. Most of the summer polder complex is to be realigned in stages over the 50 years or so (300ha are still in private hands, as the farmer did not want to sell). It Fryske Gea has decided on this staged approach as the summer polder complex is an important feeding ground for geese, and as a realigned polder takes a few years to develop goose-preferred vegetation; this approach will ensure relatively small amounts of feeding grounds are temporarily unavailable at any one time. The next stage, which will be implemented over the next 5 years, will amount to some 200ha (personal communication).

The Noorderleech realignment cost some €600,000 in total – €2,000 of which were spent on permits, and €20,000 on plan production. It Fryske Gea alone spent at least 5,000 man-hours on implementing the scheme.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.

An intensive monitoring programme investigated a range of factors, including salinsation, sedimentation, creek development, vegetation and birds (van Duin et al., 2007).

Van Duin et al. (2007) concluded that to date, the realignment had been successful, although the site was obviously still evolving. They attributed the relatively rapid success of the scheme to a number of (environmental and management) boundary conditions having been fulfilled at the same time – namely its appropriate position in the tidal frame, sediment availability, tidal exchange, drainage, closeness to target plant species, and grazing management.

Salinisation: The report firstly concluded that salinisation of the upper soil layer had been slower than expected. By the end of the monitoring period, salinity was still 30% below that of the reference saltmarsh (with increases most pronounced in the first year; plateauing in the third or following years after ‘de-polderisation’). No increased saline influence could be measured in the adjoining summer polder (in some parts fresh water influence actually increased).

Accretion: Sediment accretion in the (higher) easterly part of the restoration site was greater than in the westerly part; average accretion at elevations above 1.5mNAP was 6mm/year and 14.8mm/year below, i.e. rates were higher at the lower levels. Whether this was solely due to the lower elevation or whether it was caused by other factors (e.g. a greater transport of sediment from the saltmarsh due to creek shape) was not clear. No evidence was found that the sediment accretion in the restoration site had been at the cost of adjacent saltmarshes. On the basis of the site’s elevation, it was expected that saltmarsh vegetation would develop throughout the entire site. There were some localised issues with stagnated drainage resulting in infilling of the creeks or cessation of the connection with the excavated creek systems. The excavated, over-dimensioned, creeks had become shorter and shallower (due to sediment accretion), and some of the silted up sections had become colonised by pioneer species. The accretion rates were approximately 38% lower where grazing occurred as compared to non-grazed reference areas. Other noted effects of grazing were that it led to higher biodiversity, the colonisation of sea couch (Elytrigia atherica); to a slightly drier, more compact and saline upper soil layer; and lastly to slight positive effects on chloride concentrations in the soil.

Vegetation: Halophytes quickly settled in the lower parts of the polder (~0.3m above MHT), whilst in the higher parts (~0.6m above MHT) changes were more gradual. In lower lying parts, salt marsh has developed well, dominated by Suaeda maritima and Salicornia europea. These pioneer species are slowly being replaced by more grassy vegetation (Puccinellia maritima).

Brent Geese: Autumnal geese grazing has to date been significantly lower than on existing salt marshes. In the first season following the realignment, there was however a substantial increase. The expectation is that through an increase of grassy vegetation in the polder, the number will slowly increase. The use of the farm land behind the main dike by geese stayed low, although there was a slight increase in brent geese, in line with an overall population increase (farmers had expressed fears that geese would be displaced and start grazing on their crops, due to generally lower grazing densities on saltmarshes when compared with summer polders (NB: summer polder would be classed as coastal grazing marsh in the UK)). No significant change in the breeding bird populations was observed.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.

implementation was delayed by one year due to difficulties with obtaining permits (due to objections from the local community). It Fryske Gea had to go to court to obtain the necessary permits (personal communication, It Fryske Gea).

Image gallery

Edit Image gallery

Catchment and subcatchment Select a catchment/subcatchment Site Edit site Name Mainland coast of Friesland (opposite Island of Ameland) WFD water body codes WFD (national) typology coastal WFD water body name Pre-project morphology Reference morphology Desired post project morphology Heavily modified water body No National/international site designation Local/regional site designations Protected species present No Invasive species present No Species of interest Dominant hydrology Dominant substrate River corridor land use Pasture Average bankfull channel width category Average bankfull channel width (m) Average bankfull channel depth category Average bankfull channel depth (m) Mean discharge category Mean annual discharge (m3/s) Average channel gradient category Average channel gradient Average unit stream power (W/m2) Project background Edit project background Reach length directly affected (m) Project started Works started Works completed Project completed Total cost category 1000 - 5000 k€ Total cost (k€) 5,0005,000 k€ <br />5,000,000 € <br /> Benefit to cost ratio Funding sources Cost for project phases Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname Investigation and design Stakeholder engagement and communication Works and works supervision Post-project management and maintenance Monitoring Supplementary funding information The Noorderleech realignment cost some €600,000 in total – €2,000 of which were spent on permits, and €20,000 on plan production. It Fryske Gea alone spent at least 5,000 man-hours on implementing the scheme. Reasons for river restoration Edit reasons for restoration Mitigation of a pressure Hydromorphology Biology Physico-chemical Other reasons for the project Measures Edit Measures Structural measures Bank/bed modifications Floodplain / River corridor Planform / Channel pattern Other Non-structural measures Management interventions Social measures (incl. engagement) Other Monitoring Hydromorphological quality elements Edit Hydromorphological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Biological quality elements Edit biological quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Physico-chemical quality elements Edit Physico-chemical quality elements Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic Edit Other responses Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative Monitoring documents Upload monitoring documents Additional documents and videos Upload additional documents Noard fryslan Butendyks Managed realignment scheme ABPmer summary Additional links and references Edit links and references Link Description Supplementary Information Edit Supplementary Information van Duin, W.E., Esselink, P., Bos, D., Klaver, R., Verweij, G., van Leeuwen, W., 2007. Proefverkweldering Noard Fryslân Bûtendyks - Evaluatie kwelderherstel 2000-2006. Imares, Wagingen, 209p. De Leeuw, C., Meijer, M.L., 2002. Proefgebieden herstel zoet-zout overgangen in Noord Nederland. werkdocument concept. RIKZ, Haren. & www.zoetzout.nl