Case study:Off-Channels Restauration: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:
}}
}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Case study subcatchment}}
{{Site}}
{{Site
|Name=Guil Basin
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|Species=trout (Salmo trutta), Cottus gobio,
|Average bankfull channel width category=Less than 2 m
|Average bankfull channel depth category=Less than 0.5 m
|Mean discharge category=Less than 0.1 m³/s
|Average channel gradient category=Less than 0.001
}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Motivations}}

Revision as of 16:09, 16 May 2013

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: 44° 45' 16.68" N, 6° 47' 53.03" 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, Water quality
Country France
Main contact forename François
Main contact surname Masset
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Federation de Peche Hautes Alpes
Contact organisation web site http://peche-hautes-alpes.com/
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
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.


In the Guil Basin, side channels and off-channels features within the floodplain provide vital habitat to many juvenile and endemic brown trouts. Besides relatively sheltered rearing habitat, floodplain features provide important low velocity refugia during periods of high flow when fish remaining in the main channels are washed away. these groundwater fed channels can be restored to provide valuable off-channel rearing habitat for trouts when these areas will no longer be created or naturally maintained as a consequence of hydro-modification, development, levee construction, incision or bank armoring that limit flooding and channel migration or dry the off-channels. The key element of these sites is their perennial flow of generally cooler water in summer and warmer water in winter that increases fish survival and growth. This restoration is particularly attractive for the high-energy Guil stream where flow extremes and channel instability often make it impractical to attempt rehabilitation of the main channel. Off-channel habitat rehabilitation can also be a worthwhile option in the interior, where winter conditions may be severe in the main channel

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



Site

Edit site
Name Guil Basin
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest trout (Salmo trutta), Cottus gobio
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category Less than 2 m
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category Less than 0.5 m
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category Less than 0.1 m³/s
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category Less than 0.001
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Edit 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

Edit reasons for restoration
Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Edit 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

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Edit 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

Edit Other responses
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents



Image gallery



Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information