Case study:Reopening of Mjølløst stream: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 24: Line 24:
Station 3 (200 m ustreams closuse): 57 trout / 100m2.
Station 3 (200 m ustreams closuse): 57 trout / 100m2.


Fish from upstream stations is in principle stationary trout.
Fish from upstream stations (2 and 3) is stationary trout introduced by local people from other locations.
|Lessons learn=1. Because of its proximity to the railway (< 30 m) it is required an approval from the railway authorities (Bane-Nor) in order to be able to daylight / deculvert the stream.
|Lessons learn=1. Because of its proximity to the railway (< 30 m) it is required an approval from the railway authorities (Bane-Nor) in order to be able to daylight / deculvert the stream.
2. There can be quick clay (kvikkleire) according to NVE (Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate). This makes necessary to explore the ground stability before digging the pipe out of the ground. This will increase considerably the costs of the project.
2. There can be quick clay (kvikkleire) in the area of restoration according to NVE (Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate). This makes necessary to explore the ground stability before digging the pipe out of the ground. This will increase considerably the costs of the project.
|Project title=Reopening of Mjølløst stream
|Project title=Reopening of Mjølløst stream
}}
}}
Line 98: Line 98:
|File name=Project deculverting Mjollost stream.pdf
|File name=Project deculverting Mjollost stream.pdf
|Description=Description of the culverted stream, and initial technical proposal for deculverting (in Norwegian)
|Description=Description of the culverted stream, and initial technical proposal for deculverting (in Norwegian)
}}
{{Case study documents
|File name=GJEaaPNING AV MJoLoSTBEKKEN - kommentarer NLR.pdf
|Description=Kommentarer fra NLR
}}
}}
{{Additional Documents end}}
{{Additional Documents end}}

Latest revision as of 10:39, 16 February 2021

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

4.00
(one vote)


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


Location: 59° 9' 34.98" N, 10° 15' 39.20" 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 Planned
Project web site
Themes Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring
Country Norway
Main contact forename Miguel A.
Main contact surname Segarra Valls
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Vannområde Horten-Larvik
Contact organisation web site http://www.vannportalen.no/vannregioner/vestfold-og-telemark/vannomrader/horten---larvik/
Partner organisations Sandefjord kommune, Sandefjord Forvaltningsråd for Anadrom Laksefisk
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Mjølløst stream is part of a 17 km long stream system. Mjølløst stream has since the 1960s had a 270 meter long stream closure that prevents sea trout from accessing a 1.4 km stream stretch. The concrete pipe is getting closer to the end of its lifetime and might collapse in the next years if nothing is done. Landowner, local and regional authorities are positive to remove the culvert and restore the original stream. This project got funding from Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) in 2020 and we intend to implement it in 2021, if it is technically possible (see "Lessons learnt").

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Results electrofishing October 2020 (before reopening of the stream):

Station 1 (downstreams closure): 141 trout / 100 m2. Station 2 (upstreams closure): 1 trout / 100m2. Station 3 (200 m ustreams closuse): 57 trout / 100m2.

Fish from upstream stations (2 and 3) is stationary trout introduced by local people from other locations.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


1. Because of its proximity to the railway (< 30 m) it is required an approval from the railway authorities (Bane-Nor) in order to be able to daylight / deculvert the stream. 2. There can be quick clay (kvikkleire) in the area of restoration according to NVE (Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate). This makes necessary to explore the ground stability before digging the pipe out of the ground. This will increase considerably the costs of the project.


Image gallery


Mjollost 1 (downtreams) october 2020.jpg
Mjollost 2 (upstreams) october 2020.jpg
Mjollost 3 (upstreams) october 2020.jpg
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name
WFD water body codes NO014-113-R
WFD (national) typology REL2321
WFD water body name Unnebergsbekken bekkefelt
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations Unnebergsbekken, Frombekken, Mjølløstbekken
Protected species present No
Invasive species present Yes
Species of interest Sea trout (Salmo trutta), European eel (Anguilla anguilla)
Dominant hydrology Perennial Flashy (PF)
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) 0.030.03 m³/s <br />30 l/s <br />
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m) 270270 m <br />0.27 km <br />27,000 cm <br />
Project started 2020/03/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€) 100100 k€ <br />100,000 € <br />
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources The Norwegian Environmental Agency (Miljødirektoratet)

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design 2020 k€ <br />20,000 € <br />
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision 7070 k€ <br />70,000 € <br />
Post-project management and maintenance 55 k€ <br />5,000 € <br />
Monitoring 55 k€ <br />5,000 € <br />

Supplementary funding information

Preliminary estimates.



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Sea trout migration
Hydromorphology Closure of stream
Biology Fish
Physico-chemical Not relevant
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Reopening of culverted river
Floodplain / River corridor
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement) Planting riparian vegetation with school pupils.
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
Fish: Abundance Yes No No Yes No

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