Case study:Off-Channels Restauration: Difference between revisions
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.
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 |
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
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
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
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
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information