Case study:The Fortuna Restoration Project: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{End_table}} | {{End_table}} | ||
{{ | {{Other responses header}} | ||
{{ | {{Other response table row | ||
|Element= | |Element=medicinal plants | ||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=No | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Monitored before= | |Result=Improvement | ||
}} | |||
|Monitored after= | {{Other response table row | ||
|Element=Fish | |||
|Qualitative monitoring= | |Monitored before=Yes | ||
|Monitored after=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring= | |Qualitative monitoring=No | ||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used= | |Control site used=No | ||
|Result=Improvement | |||
| | }} | ||
{{Other response table row | |||
|Element=Pastures | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=No | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
}} | |||
{{Other response table row | |||
|Element=Reed | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=No | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{End_table}} | {{End_table}} |
Revision as of 11:06, 16 November 2012
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Location: 45° 11' 28.43" N, 29° 8' 53.17" E
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | |
Country | Romania |
Main contact forename | Marian |
Main contact surname | Tudor |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | The Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development, Tulcea |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.ddni.ro |
Partner organisations | The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
This case study hasn’t got any project summary, you can add some by editing the project overview.
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.
Catchment and subcatchment
Select a catchment/subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)
Catchment
River basin district | Danube |
---|---|
River basin |
Subcatchment
River name | Sulina Branch |
---|---|
Area category | Less than 10 km² |
Area (km2) | 2.115 km²211.5 ha <br /> |
Maximum altitude category | Less than 100 m |
Maximum altitude (m) | 1.50 m0.0015 km <br />150 cm <br /> |
Dominant geology | Organic (i.e. Peat), clay |
Ecoregion | Pontic Province |
Dominant land cover | Grassland, Reed |
Waterbody ID |
Site
Name | Forestry polder Fortuna |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | RORW14.1_B5 |
WFD (national) typology | RO15 |
WFD water body name | |
Pre-project morphology | Embanked, Forestry area |
Reference morphology | Sinuous, Artificial channel |
Desired post project morphology | |
Heavily modified water body | No |
National/international site designation | International - RAMSAR site |
Local/regional site designations | Biosphere Reserves |
Protected species present | No |
Invasive species present | No |
Species of interest | |
Dominant hydrology | Artificially regulated, Floodplain area |
Dominant substrate | Clay, Peat |
River corridor land use | Grassland, Wetland |
Average bankfull channel width category | 10 - 50 m |
Average bankfull channel width (m) | 15.0015 m <br />0.015 km <br />1,500 cm <br /> |
Average bankfull channel depth category | 0.5 - 2 m |
Average bankfull channel depth (m) | 1.5 m0.0015 km <br />150 cm <br /> |
Mean discharge category | |
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) | 69.769.7 m³/s <br />69,700 l/s <br /> |
Average channel gradient category | |
Average channel gradient | 0.015 |
Average unit stream power (W/m2) | 683.5479683.548 W/m² <br /> |
Project background
Reach length directly affected (m) | |
---|---|
Project started | 1999/12/01 |
Works started | 2004/03/01 |
Works completed | 2004/11/01 |
Project completed | |
Total cost category | more than 10000 k€ |
Total cost (k€) | 2093000 k€2,093,000,000 € <br /> |
Benefit to cost ratio | |
Funding sources | GEF – BM Programe |
Cost for project phases
Phase | cost category | cost exact (k€) | Lead organisation | Contact forename | Contact surname |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Investigation and design | The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Tulcea | Marian | Tudor | ||
Stakeholder engagement and communication | The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Tulcea | ||||
Works and works supervision | The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Tulcea | ||||
Post-project management and maintenance | The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Tulcea | ||||
Monitoring | The Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development, Tulcea (office@indd.tim.ro) | Marian | Tudor |
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | Create breaches in the bank |
Floodplain / River corridor | |
Planform / Channel pattern | Connecting Fishpond Fortuna to the Danube regime |
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 | |||
Quantity & dynamics of flow | No | Yes | No | No | No | Improvement |
Continuity of sediment transport | No | No | No | No | No |
Biological quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
Fish | Yes | No | No | No | No | Improvement |
Invertebrates | No | Yes | No | No | No | |
Macrophytes | No | No | No | No | No | |
Phytoplankton | No | No | No | No | No |
|
Physico-chemical quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
Nutrient concentrations | Yes | No | No | No | No | Improvement |
Salinity | No | Yes | No | No | No | |
Oxygen balance | No | No | No | No | No | |
Temperature | No | No | No | No | No | |
PH | No | No | No | No | No |
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
medicinal plants | No | No | No | No | No | Improvement |
Fish | Yes | No | No | No | No | Improvement |
Pastures | No | No | No | No | No | |
Reed | No | No | No | No | No |
Monitoring documents
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|