Case study:Voorste Nete at Dessel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(18 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project picture=Voorste Nete, Dessels pre post.png | |Project picture=Voorste Nete, Dessels pre post.png | ||
|Picture description=Upper row (left and right): original reach of the Voorste Nete. Middle row (left and right): Excavation of a 5 m wide stretch for placing the bentonite mat and refilling with the original sand. Bottom row (left and right): Diverted reach of the Voorste Nete, dug out in sand filled bentonite lining with transferred substrate from the original reach, and the same stretch 6 months later during first monitoring showing the changes in dimensions caused by a summer storm in 2004. | |Picture description=Source of photographs - ECRR 2008. Upper row (left and right): original reach of the Voorste Nete. Middle row (left and right): Excavation of a 5 m wide stretch for placing the bentonite mat and refilling with the original sand. Bottom row (left and right): Diverted reach of the Voorste Nete, dug out in sand filled bentonite lining with transferred substrate from the original reach, and the same stretch 6 months later during first monitoring showing the changes in dimensions caused by a summer storm in 2004. | ||
|Project summary=In 2004 a reach of 1.3km of the small, channelized lowland brook, Voorste Nete, was diverted because of sand mining activities. The sinuosity of the | |Project summary=In 2004 a reach of 1.3km of the small, channelized lowland brook, Voorste Nete, was diverted because of sand mining activities. The sinuosity of the newly created reach of the Voorste Nete, 1.9km in length, was based on old maps, aerial photography and field measurements. The new brook was hydrologically isolated with a bentonite mat preventing water loss due to a decline of the groundwater level. The sides of the bentonite were placed upright for 0.5m and the lining was filled with the original sand from digging out the new reach. | ||
Originally the newly created streambed has a weak meandering channel pattern (sinuoscity 1.1), and was 1m wide at the bottom and 2m wide at the top. In August 2004, a summer storm caused severe erosion and had a noticeable impact on the profile. In the first three years, mechanical weed clearance was only conducted once in the upstream reach of the diversion in autumn 2005. In 2007, mechanical weed mowing was executed for the total stream. | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Image gallery}} | |||
{{Image gallery end}} | |||
{{Toggle button}} | |||
{{Toggle content start}} | |||
{{Case study subcatchment | {{Case study subcatchment | ||
|Subcatchment=Meuse | |Subcatchment=Meuse | ||
Line 34: | Line 41: | ||
|Mean discharge category=0.1 - 1.0 m³/s | |Mean discharge category=0.1 - 1.0 m³/s | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Project background}} | {{Project background | ||
{{Motivations}} | |Reach length directly affected=1900 | ||
{{Measures}} | |Project started=2004/04/01 | ||
|Works started=2004/04/01 | |||
|Works completed=2004/06/01 | |||
|Project completed=2004/06/01 | |||
|Monitoring Lead organisation=University Hasselt | |||
|Monitoring Other contact forename=Alain | |||
|Monitoring Other contact surname=De Vocht | |||
}} | |||
{{Motivations | |||
|Specific mitigation=Aggregate/mineral extraction, | |||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Channel pattern/planform, Width & depth variation, Substrate conditions, Quantity & dynamics of flow, | |||
|Biological quality elements=Fish: Species composition, Fish: Age structure, Fish: Abundance, Invertebrates: Taxonomic composition, | |||
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Oxygen balance, | |||
}} | |||
{{Measures | |||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Translocation of original substrate into new channel, Alteration in channel dimensions | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Channel naturalisation, Meandering channel, | |||
|Management interventions=Weed clearance | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Biological quality elements header}} | {{Biological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Invertebrates | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macrophytes | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Angiosperms | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Fish: Species composition | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=No change | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Fish: Abundance | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | ||
Line 47: | Line 117: | ||
{{Monitoring documents}} | {{Monitoring documents}} | ||
{{Monitoring documents end}} | {{Monitoring documents end}} | ||
{{Additional Documents}} | {{Additional Documents}} | ||
{{Additional Documents end}} | {{Additional Documents end}} | ||
{{Additional links and references header}} | {{Additional links and references header}} | ||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=www.ecrr.org/archive/conf08/pdf/proceed10.pdf | |||
|Description=De Vocht et al. (2008) Ecological Evaluation of a Technically Restored Lowland Watercourse in Flanders, Belgium, p.583-592. | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references footer}} | {{Additional links and references footer}} | ||
{{Supplementary Information}} | {{Supplementary Information}} | ||
{{Toggle content end}} |
Latest revision as of 16:43, 2 January 2019
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring |
Country | Belgium |
Main contact forename | Nick |
Main contact surname | Elbourne |
Main contact user ID | User:NickRRC |
Contact organisation | River Restoration Centre |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.therrc.co.uk |
Partner organisations | University Hasselt, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Diepenbeek |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
In 2004 a reach of 1.3km of the small, channelized lowland brook, Voorste Nete, was diverted because of sand mining activities. The sinuosity of the newly created reach of the Voorste Nete, 1.9km in length, was based on old maps, aerial photography and field measurements. The new brook was hydrologically isolated with a bentonite mat preventing water loss due to a decline of the groundwater level. The sides of the bentonite were placed upright for 0.5m and the lining was filled with the original sand from digging out the new reach.
Originally the newly created streambed has a weak meandering channel pattern (sinuoscity 1.1), and was 1m wide at the bottom and 2m wide at the top. In August 2004, a summer storm caused severe erosion and had a noticeable impact on the profile. In the first three years, mechanical weed clearance was only conducted once in the upstream reach of the diversion in autumn 2005. In 2007, mechanical weed mowing was executed for the total stream.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Aaijen- Removal of bank fixation, Meers - Floodplain lowering, Reméandration du Geer à Grand-Axhe, Rijkelse Bemden - River bed widening
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|