Case study:Snelle Loop: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 23: Line 23:
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Aa (Noord-Brabant)
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=Snelle Loop
|Name=Snelle Loop

Latest revision as of 13:12, 27 January 2021

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: 51° 30' 31.79" N, 5° 46' 20.06" 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, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring
Country Netherlands
Main contact forename Bram
Main contact surname Spierings
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Waterschap Aa en Maas
Contact organisation web site http://www.aaenmaas.nl
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Building with nature measures in streams

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
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.


After the removal of a weir, the stream's flow velocity had become uniform, with little variation in substrate and macroinvertebrates as a consequence. Ten packages of wood were introduced into the stream, in different configurations.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Students of the HAS Hogeschool have found that the measures have had a positive effect on the ecology. There is now more diversity in macroinvertebrates, including the common clubtail and certain heteroptera species. Hydromorphological effects were positive as well. The wood packages have created more variation in flow velocity and substrate. The backwater effects of the wood created a more favourable hydraulic gradient in the stream. It also requires much less maintenance now. The large improvement in ecological status may also be related to the increased shading, but it is still too soon to conclude that.

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

Catchment

River basin district Meuse
River basin Maas

Subcatchment

River name Aa (Noord-Brabant)
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology Siliceous
Ecoregion Western Plains
Dominant land cover Grassland, Intensive agriculture (arable), Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Urban
Waterbody ID NL38_1H



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Vlier


Site

Name Snelle Loop
WFD water body codes NL38_2K
WFD (national) typology R4
WFD water body name Esperloop & Snelle Loop
Pre-project morphology Artificial channel
Reference morphology Artificial channel
Desired post project morphology Artificial channel
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
Dominant substrate Sand
River corridor land use Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture, Intensive agriculture (arable)
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category 0.1 - 1.0 m³/s
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started
Works started
Works completed
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
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


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

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

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

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information