Case study:Odder Stream Restoration: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture | |Themes=Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture | ||
|Country=Denmark | |Country=Denmark | ||
|Main contact forename= Bo | |Main contact forename=Bo | ||
|Main contact surname=Levesen | |Main contact surname=Levesen | ||
|Main contact id=LauraRRC | |||
|Contact organisation=Vejle Kommune | |Contact organisation=Vejle Kommune | ||
|Contact organisation url=www.vejle.dk/ | |Contact organisation url=www.vejle.dk/ |
Revision as of 11:41, 13 November 2013
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | http://www.vejle.dk/Borger/Natur-og-miljoe/Naturprojekter/Odderbaek--projekter-i-hele-oplandet.aspx |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity, Land use management - agriculture |
Country | Denmark |
Main contact forename | Bo |
Main contact surname | Levesen |
Main contact user ID | User:LauraRRC |
Contact organisation | Vejle Kommune |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.vejle.dk/ |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
This project aimed to:
(1) Remove 480 kg P per year – equals ¾ of the total Phosphorus loading to Kul Lake; (2) Remove 18 tons N per year or 114 kg/N/ha per year; (3) Stoppage of vegetation cutting and dredging; (4) Removal of all dams/weirs in the entire watershed; (5) Ensure habitat for the orchid Coralroot (Corallorhiza trifida) and Western marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza majalis; (6) Improve habitat for the European brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) and Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra; and (7) Open the area to the public for recreation – 37 km of trials.
The restoration activities in the first 65 hectares included:
(1) Restoring 1.3 km of stream; (2) Raised the stream bed 50 – 80 cm; (3) Crushed/removed 25 drain systems and 7 ditches; (4) Spawning grounds every 20 meters in the stream – 650 m3 gravel; (5) 15.2 hectares of permanent/semi-permanent wetlands; (6) 8.5 hectares of seasonally flooded wetlands; (7) 6 hectares of seepage wetlands from removing drains; and (8) Area is fenced to allow grazing over entire area – special agreements between land owners.
The River Restoration Centre would like to thank Matthew William Cochran, from ORBICON, for providing the information and photographs for this case study.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Supplementary funding informationCosts 10,840,000 Danish Kroners ( ,971,000 million) support from the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries 250,000 DKK (,500) support from Vejle Kommune 11,090,000 DKK (,016,000) Archaeology survey – 23,000 DKK (,000) Construction costs – 1,925,000 DKK (0,000) Administrative costs – 26,000 DKK (,000) Compensation to landowners – 7,875,000 DKK ( ,430,000) Maintenance of wetland area (grazing) – 985,000 DKK (0,000) Design and consulting services – 250,000 DKK (,500)
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|