Case study:Beekherstel Buurserbeek: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 155: Line 155:
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Quantitative monitoring=No
|Control site used=No
|Control site used=No
|Result=Improvement
}}
}}
{{End table}}
{{End table}}

Revision as of 10:32, 30 June 2019

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


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


Location: 52° 8' 10.28" N, 6° 42' 34.15" E
Loading map...
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 Environmental flows and water resources, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Monitoring
Country Netherlands
Main contact forename John
Main contact surname Lenssen
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Waterschap Rijn en Ijssel
Contact organisation web site http://https://www.wrij.nl/
Partner organisations
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Het huidig beeld van de Buurserbeek is een langzaam stromende, sterk genormaliseerde beek. De beek ligt voor een deel in agrarisch gebied maar voor een belangrijk deel stroomt de beek ook door bossen of natuurgebieden (Bijvoorbeeld Buurserzand en de bossen ten oosten van Haaksbergen) of is begroeid met houtige gewassen op de oevers. Langs nagenoeg de gehele beek ligt aan weerszijden een 4m breed onderhoudspad en de beek ligt over de gehele lengte tussen kades of hoge gronden. Stroomopwaarts van de Twenteroute heeft de beek heeft nagenoeg het gehele jaar afvoer en op de meeste plekken is de stroomsnelheid nu voldoende voor stroming-minnende soorten. Stroomafwaarts van de Twenteroute valt de afvoer ’s zomers grotendeels weg waardoor de beek stil komt te staan. Het onderhoud is nog intensief op de tracés benedenstrooms van Braambrug. De Buurserbeek voldoet nog niet aan de gestelde ecologische doelen. De beek is te diep en er is te weinig structuurvariatie. Nutriëntgehalten zijn ook nog te hoog in de Buurserbeek. Dit wordt voornamelijk veroorzaakt door afwenteling vanuit Duitsland.

Binnen de kades heeft de beek ruimte voor vrije meandering. De beek is ondiep en breed en heeft een afwisseling van zandbanken en stroomkuilen met dood hout en plaatselijk een weelderige vegetatie van water- en oeverplanten. Het grootste deel, ca. 80% van het beektraject is bebost. De Buurserbeek is geheel optrekbaar voor vis.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name Buurserbeek
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology R5
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology Sterk veranderend
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology Artificially regulated
Dominant substrate Sand, Musselkalk, dekzand/keileem
River corridor land use Intensive agriculture (arable), Plantation forestry
Average bankfull channel width category 5 - 10 m
Average bankfull channel width (m) 66 m <br />0.006 km <br />600 cm <br />
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
Average bankfull channel depth (m) 0.80.8 m <br />8.0e-4 km <br />80 cm <br />
Mean discharge category 1 - 10 m³/s
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) 1.411.41 m³/s <br />1,410 l/s <br />
Average channel gradient category more than 0.1
Average channel gradient 0.74
Average unit stream power (W/m2) 8.27 * 10^-4 "*10^-4" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property.


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m) 1620016,200 m <br />16.2 km <br />1,620,000 cm <br />
Project started 2015
Works started
Works completed 2015/12/31
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
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



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Barriers to fish migration
Hydromorphology Flow velocities, Width & depth variation
Biology Fish, Invertebrates
Physico-chemical Temperature, PH, Oxygen balance, Nutrient concentrations
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Vergraven van de oever
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other Dood hout inbreng
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Substrate conditions Yes Yes No No No Improvement
Flow velocities Yes Yes No No No Improvement
Width & depth variation Yes Yes No No No Improvement

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Fish Yes Yes No No No Improvement
Invertebrates Yes Yes No No No Improvement

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Temperature Yes Yes No No No Improvement
PH Yes Yes No No No Improvement
Oxygen balance Yes Yes No No No Improvement
Nutrient concentrations Yes Yes No No No Improvement

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Concentration phosphate, Chloride and Nitrogen Yes Yes No No No Improvement


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information