Case study:Blauwe Kamer: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location |
Revision as of 16:20, 5 September 2013
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | Netherlands |
Main contact forename | Rogier |
Main contact surname | Vogelij |
Main contact user ID | User:InfoMan |
Contact organisation | Utrechts Landschap |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.utrechtslandschap.nl |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The Blauwe Kamer (Blue Room, named after a farm that stood in the area) was one of the first projects, in 1992, in line with the ideas of Plan Ooievaar (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Ooievaar, Dutch), which can be seen as a predecessor for the Room for the River program.
The first measure that was taken was to take away part of the summer quay, restoring the natural dynamics of the floodplain, thereby bringing back the natural river landscape. The low-lying area now becomes inundated even with a slight increase of the water level. This, together with the introduction of large herbivores, konik horses and galloway cattle, has led to the emergence of a more diverse landscape. In 2002 the Grebbeberg, the south side of the Utrecht Hill Ridge is connected to the Blauwe Kamer. As part of the National Ecological Network is the Blauwe Kamer part of a project where the Utrecht Ridge, the Veluwe and the river banks of the Meuse and Waal get connected with each other. For this purpose a number of barriers such as the N225 provincial road still need to be resolved.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)
Catchment
River basin district | Rhine |
---|---|
River basin | Rhine |
Subcatchment
River name | Rhine |
---|---|
Area category | 1000 - 10000 km² |
Area (km2) | |
Maximum altitude category | 1000 - 2000 m |
Maximum altitude (m) | |
Dominant geology | Siliceous |
Ecoregion | Central Plains |
Dominant land cover | Grassland, Urban |
Waterbody ID |
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Amerongse Bovenpolder, Bakenhof Dyke reconstruction, Room for the River, Ruppoldingen, Upper Main catchment restoration
Site
Name | Blauwe Kamer |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | |
WFD (national) typology | R7 |
WFD water body name | Lower Rhine |
Pre-project morphology | Plane bed |
Reference morphology | Low gradient passively meandering |
Desired post project morphology | |
Heavily modified water body | Yes |
National/international site designation | |
Local/regional site designations | |
Protected species present | No |
Invasive species present | No |
Species of interest | Coypu (Myocastor coypus) |
Dominant hydrology | Artificially regulated |
Dominant substrate | Sand |
River corridor land use | Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture |
Average bankfull channel width category | 5 - 10 m |
Average bankfull channel width (m) | 300300 m <br />0.3 km <br />30,000 cm <br /> |
Average bankfull channel depth category | 5 - 10 m |
Average bankfull channel depth (m) | 88 m <br />0.008 km <br />800 cm <br /> |
Mean discharge category | more than 1000 m³/s |
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) | 20002,000 m³/s <br />2,000,000 l/s <br /> |
Average channel gradient category | Less than 0.001 |
Average channel gradient | 0.00001 |
Average unit stream power (W/m2) | 0.65380.654 W/m² <br /> |
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