Case study:DUMMY TEST Daylighting Sorum: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{Project overview | {{Project overview | ||
|Status=Complete | |Status=Complete | ||
|Themes=Economic aspects, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Water quality, Urban | |Themes=Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Water quality, Urban | ||
|Country=Norway | |Country=Norway | ||
|Main contact forename=Kari | |Main contact forename=Kari | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|Partner organisations=NIVA | |Partner organisations=NIVA | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project picture= | |Project picture=RiverWiki TEST image1.jpg | ||
|Picture description= | |Picture description=2. The Texas Valley stream one year after daylighting. July 26th 2017. Photo: Kari Nordkvinne/NIVA. | ||
|Project summary=Daylighting of a previously culverted stream in a suburban area. The culvert was old and under dimensioned, thus it had to be either exchanged with a larger culvert, or removed. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, the latter was chosen, and the land owner decided on three main goals for the daylighting: 1) improve the water quality to good ecological status, 2) reduce bank erosion after removing the culvert, 3) increase the natural recreational area within this suburban zone. | |||
The project was planned and prospected in 2015, the daylighting, flood protection and reconstruction of the riparian zone was conducted in 2016, and monitoring was conducted in 2017 and 2020. | |||
|Monitoring surveys and results=Assessments of the ecological status based on nutrients, benthic algae, macroinvertebrates and fish were conducted twice, in 2017 and in 2020. The overall ecological status in 2017 and 2020 was bad due to lack of fish. This is due to a fish barrier (culvert) further down. However, macroinvertebrates increased from poor (2017) to good ecological status (2020), and benthic algae showed good status both years, thus these two organism groups had a good effect of the daylighting. Nutrients showed moderate status both years (Tot N and Tot P), which was the same as the upstream reference stretch. | |||
Embankments were set in place to reduce the risk of bank erosion after daylighting, as this could lead to negative impacts on local buildings and infrastructure. 2 years of continuous monitoring of particle runoff in the daylighted stretch was compared to similar measurements at the upstream open section, and there were no differences in particle runoff from the two stretches. | |||
To assess the recreational use of the area, the local bicycle club registered number of people using the new pathway and bench area every Saturday 10:00-14:00 from May-Oct 2017 and 2020. This showed an initial peak of users right after opening, then a slight decrease in 2017. However, the use was clearly higher in 2020, and the area was used by at least 9 people in the time registered every weekend in 2020. | |||
|Lessons learn=Opening the stream has had very good reviews from the local residents and on the ecological status for benthic algae and macroinvertebrates. The bank erosion measures seem to work well after installment, but were built in a period of heavy rain, causing surplus erosion that could have been avoided. If fish status is to be improved, then the downstream culvert also needs to reopen. The costs of these measures were similar to building a new culvert, but yearly maintenance costs have so far been lower, and the recreational benefits are positive. The local bicycle club also have some ownership of the area now, through their monitoring, which has resulted in their free involvement in keeping the area free of garbage. | |||
|Project title=DUMMY_TEST_Daylighting_Sorum | |Project title=DUMMY_TEST_Daylighting_Sorum | ||
}} | }} | ||
Line 24: | Line 33: | ||
{{Toggle content start}} | {{Toggle content start}} | ||
{{Case study subcatchment}} | {{Case study subcatchment}} | ||
{{Site}} | {{Site | ||
{{Project background}} | |Name=Texasbekken | ||
{{Motivations}} | |WFD water body code=006-189-R | ||
{{Measures}} | |WFD (national) typology=REL1411 | ||
|WFD water body name=Texasbekken oppstrøms Texasdalen | |||
|Pre-project morphology=Closed culvert, | |||
|Reference morphology=Naturally straight, | |||
|Desired post project morphology=Naturally straight, | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |||
|Site designation=Norway - Naturminne | |||
|Local site designation=World Hertiage Site, | |||
|Protected species present=No | |||
|Invasive species present=No | |||
|Dominant hydrology=Artificially regulated, | |||
|Dominant substrate=Clay, | |||
|River corridor land use=Tall herb/rank vegetation, | |||
}} | |||
{{Project background | |||
|Reach length directly affected=200 | |||
|Project started=2015/04/06 | |||
|Works started=2016/05/02 | |||
|Works completed=2016/11/15 | |||
|Project completed=2020/12/16 | |||
|Total cost category=50 - 100 k€ | |||
|Funding sources=Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet), Lillestrøm kommune | |||
|Investigation and design cost category=1 - 10 k€ | |||
|Investigation and design Lead organisation=Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) | |||
|Investigation and design Other contact forename=Berit | |||
|Investigation and design Other contact surname=Köhler | |||
|stk engagement cost=1500 | |||
|Stakeholder engagement Lead organisation=Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) | |||
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact forename=Ingrid | |||
|Stakeholder engagement Other contact surname=Nesheim | |||
}} | |||
{{Motivations | |||
|Specific mitigation=Urbanisation, | |||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=River continuity | |||
|Biological quality elements=Fish, benthic algae, macroinvertebrates | |||
|Physico-chemical quality elements=Nutrient concentrations, | |||
|Other motivation=Recreation, | |||
}} | |||
{{Measures | |||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Deculverting, | |||
|Floodplain / River corridor=Erosion protection, | |||
|Other technical measure=construction of recreational facilities (trails and footbridges), | |||
|Social measures=Volunteer engagement, | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Quantity & dynamics of flow | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=No change | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Biological quality elements header}} | {{Biological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Fish | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=No change | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Invertebrates | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macroalgae | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|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}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Nutrient concentrations | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=No change | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Other responses header}} | {{Other responses header}} | ||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Monitoring documents}} | {{Monitoring documents}} | ||
{{Case study monitoring documents | |||
|Monitoring document=Monitoring report for Webinar.pdf | |||
|Description=Monitoring report ecological status | |||
}} | |||
{{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.niva.no/en/projectweb/alnaelvaprosjektet | |||
|Description=Project website (in Norwegian) | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references | |||
|Link=www.niva.no/rapporter/overvaking-i-referanseelver | |||
|Description=Comparable reference rivers (in Norwegian) | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional links and references footer}} | {{Additional links and references footer}} | ||
{{Supplementary Information}} | {{Supplementary Information | ||
|Information=This page is only a test page, used to make a webinar by the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), for the Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet). The page will be deleted after the webinar (Feb 2021). For questions, please contact Therese Fosholt Moe: tfm@niva.no. | |||
}} | |||
{{Toggle content end}} | {{Toggle content end}} |
Latest revision as of 15:48, 2 February 2021
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Water quality, Urban |
Country | Norway |
Main contact forename | Kari |
Main contact surname | Nordkvinne |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | County Governor of Oslo og Viken |
Contact organisation web site | http://https://www.statsforvalteren.no/en/oslo-og-viken/ |
Partner organisations | NIVA |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Daylighting of a previously culverted stream in a suburban area. The culvert was old and under dimensioned, thus it had to be either exchanged with a larger culvert, or removed. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, the latter was chosen, and the land owner decided on three main goals for the daylighting: 1) improve the water quality to good ecological status, 2) reduce bank erosion after removing the culvert, 3) increase the natural recreational area within this suburban zone.
The project was planned and prospected in 2015, the daylighting, flood protection and reconstruction of the riparian zone was conducted in 2016, and monitoring was conducted in 2017 and 2020.
Monitoring surveys and results
Assessments of the ecological status based on nutrients, benthic algae, macroinvertebrates and fish were conducted twice, in 2017 and in 2020. The overall ecological status in 2017 and 2020 was bad due to lack of fish. This is due to a fish barrier (culvert) further down. However, macroinvertebrates increased from poor (2017) to good ecological status (2020), and benthic algae showed good status both years, thus these two organism groups had a good effect of the daylighting. Nutrients showed moderate status both years (Tot N and Tot P), which was the same as the upstream reference stretch.
Embankments were set in place to reduce the risk of bank erosion after daylighting, as this could lead to negative impacts on local buildings and infrastructure. 2 years of continuous monitoring of particle runoff in the daylighted stretch was compared to similar measurements at the upstream open section, and there were no differences in particle runoff from the two stretches.
To assess the recreational use of the area, the local bicycle club registered number of people using the new pathway and bench area every Saturday 10:00-14:00 from May-Oct 2017 and 2020. This showed an initial peak of users right after opening, then a slight decrease in 2017. However, the use was clearly higher in 2020, and the area was used by at least 9 people in the time registered every weekend in 2020.
Lessons learnt
Opening the stream has had very good reviews from the local residents and on the ecological status for benthic algae and macroinvertebrates. The bank erosion measures seem to work well after installment, but were built in a period of heavy rain, causing surplus erosion that could have been avoided. If fish status is to be improved, then the downstream culvert also needs to reopen. The costs of these measures were similar to building a new culvert, but yearly maintenance costs have so far been lower, and the recreational benefits are positive. The local bicycle club also have some ownership of the area now, through their monitoring, which has resulted in their free involvement in keeping the area free of garbage.
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchment
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 This page is only a test page, used to make a webinar by the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), for the Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet). The page will be deleted after the webinar (Feb 2021). For questions, please contact Therese Fosholt Moe: tfm@niva.no.
|