Case study:Tungelroyse Beek (Downstream): Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
}}
}}
{{Project overview
{{Project overview
|Project title=Tungelroyse Beek
|Status=Complete
|Status=Complete
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - forestry, Water quality
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - forestry, Water quality
Line 14: Line 13:
|Contact organisation=Waterschap Limburg
|Contact organisation=Waterschap Limburg
|Contact organisation url=waterschaplimburg.nl
|Contact organisation url=waterschaplimburg.nl
|Name of parent multi-site project=Building with nature measures in streams
|Multi-site=No
|Multi-site=No
|Name of parent multi-site project=Building with nature measures in streams
|Project summary=The Tungelroyse beek is a meandering stream with a low flow velocity. It features several sand bars and overhanging banks. Sixty oak trunks were introduced into this stream.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The indroduction of large quantities of wood has increased the variation in substrate. Plant growth has been observed between the dead wood fragments, but there has been no positive effect on biodiversity. In some parts of the stream, there has been a stagnation of the flow and a silt accumulation due to the presence of watermills.
|Project title=Tungelroyse Beek
}}
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery}}
Line 21: Line 23:
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle button}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Toggle content start}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment
|Subcatchment=Tungelroyse Beek
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=Tungelroyse Beek
|Name=Tungelroyse Beek
Line 35: Line 39:
|Dominant substrate=Sand,
|Dominant substrate=Sand,
|River corridor land use=Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Grassland, Intensive agriculture (arable),
|River corridor land use=Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Grassland, Intensive agriculture (arable),
|Average bankfull channel width category=10 - 50 m
|Avrg bankfull channel width=12
|Average bankfull channel depth category=0.5 - 2 m
|Avrg1 bankfull channel depth=1.4
|Mean discharge category=1 - 10 m³/s
|Mean discharge category=1 - 10 m³/s
|Mn discharge=2
|Mn discharge=1
|Average channel gradient category=Less than 0.001
|Avrg channel gradient=0.00024
}}
}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}

Latest revision as of 14:50, 23 March 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° 14' 26.87" N, 5° 55' 11.69" 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 Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - forestry, Water quality
Country Netherlands
Main contact forename Arnoud
Main contact surname Soetens
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Waterschap Limburg
Contact organisation web site http://waterschaplimburg.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.


The Tungelroyse beek is a meandering stream with a low flow velocity. It features several sand bars and overhanging banks. Sixty oak trunks were introduced into this stream.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


The indroduction of large quantities of wood has increased the variation in substrate. Plant growth has been observed between the dead wood fragments, but there has been no positive effect on biodiversity. In some parts of the stream, there has been a stagnation of the flow and a silt accumulation due to the presence of watermills.

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 Tungelroyse Beek
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2) 400400 km² <br />40,000 ha <br />
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology Sand
Ecoregion Western Plains
Dominant land cover Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Intensive agriculture (arable), Grassland
Waterbody ID NL57_TUNG



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Tungelroyse Beek (upstream), Tungelroyse beek


Site

Name Tungelroyse Beek
WFD water body codes NL57_TUNG
WFD (national) typology R5
WFD water body name Tungelroyse Beek
Pre-project morphology Actively meandering
Reference morphology Actively meandering
Desired post project morphology Actively meandering
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 Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Grassland, Intensive agriculture (arable)
Average bankfull channel width category 10 - 50 m
Average bankfull channel width (m) 1212 m <br />0.012 km <br />1,200 cm <br />
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
Average bankfull channel depth (m) 1.41.4 m <br />0.0014 km <br />140 cm <br />
Mean discharge category 1 - 10 m³/s
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) 11 m³/s <br />1,000 l/s <br />
Average channel gradient category Less than 0.001
Average channel gradient 0.00024
Average unit stream power (W/m2) 0.196140.196 W/m² <br />


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