Case study:Deculverting Djupsund stream: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case study status
{{Case study status}}
|Approval status=Draft
{{Location}}
}}
{{Project overview}}
{{Location
|Location=59.120474576059955, 10.261882763422117
}}
{{Project overview
|Status=In progress
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Social benefits, Spatial planning
|Country=Norway
|Main contact forename=Miguel Angel
|Main contact surname=Segarra Valls
|Contact organisation=Vannområde Horten-Larvik
|Contact organisation url=https://www.vannportalen.no/vannregioner/vestfold-og-telemark/vannomrader/horten---larvik/
|Partner organisations=Sandefjord Forvaltningsråd for Anadrom Laksefisk
|Multi-site=No
|Project picture=Djupsund stream before and after daylighting.png
|Project summary=The Djupsund stream is a very small but very important stram for sea trout in the fjord Mefjorden (Sandefjord municipality), and it has been described as "a small sea trout machine". The upper part of the stream was culverted with pipes that were too small, and this caused problems for crossing way when strong rainfall episodes occurred. Around 80 m of the stream were daylighted, and a new 1 m diameter pipe was installed under the way in December 2020. Gravel was used to cover parts of daylighted stream and the bottom of the pipe under the crossing way.
 
We intend to restore the riparian vegetation along the daylighted stream during spring 2021, in cooperation with pupils from a nearby school.
|Monitoring surveys and results=The recolonization of the new stream stretch by sea trout will be monitored from 2021.
|Lessons learn=New research shows that the ideal amount of spawning gravel in a stream is 20 % of the habitat (https://lakseelver.no/nb/news-2019/utlegg-av-gytegrus). We covered much more of the reopened stream, and will consider to take measures in order to increase the habitat variation.
|Project title=Deculverting Djupsund stream
}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Image gallery}}
{{Case study image
{{Case study image

Revision as of 20:46, 4 February 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: none specified



Project overview

Edit project overview
Status
Project web site
Themes
Country
Main contact forename
Main contact surname
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
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

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.


Image gallery


Djupsund stream after deculvering. Picture: Miguel A. Segarra Valls
Djupsund stream after deculvering. Picture: Miguel A. Segarra Valls
Sea tout at the opening of the old culvert in Djupsund stream.jpg
Description restauration project in Djupsund Stream.png
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
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)
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


Retrieved from "https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Case_study:Deculverting_Djupsund_stream&oldid=47800"