Case study:TEST Daylighting the Texas Valley stream: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 50: Line 50:
|River corridor land use=Tall herb/rank vegetation,
|River corridor land use=Tall herb/rank vegetation,
}}
}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background
|Reach length directly affected=150
|Project started=2015/02/02
|Works started=2016/05/08
|Works completed=2016/11/22
|Project completed=2020/11/23
|Total cost category=50 - 100 k€
|Funding sources=Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet), Lillestrøm Municpality
}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Motivations}}
{{Measures}}
{{Measures}}

Revision as of 19:51, 2 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: 59° 58' 44.67" N, 11° 14' 29.77" 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 Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Water quality, Urban
Country Norway
Main contact forename Kari
Main contact surname Nordkvinne
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation County Governor of Oslo og Viken
Contact organisation web site http://https://www.statsforvalteren.no/en/oslo-og-viken/
Partner organisations NIVA
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
2. Newly restored stretch of stream Texas Valley, one year after implementation of restoration measures, i.e. March 2017. Photo: Kari Nordkvinne/NIVA.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Daylighting of a previously culverted stream in a suburban area. The culvert was old and under dimensioned, thus it had to be either exchanged with a larger culvert, or removed. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, the latter was chosen, and the land owner decided on three main goals for the daylighting: 1) improve the water quality to good ecological status, 2) reduce bank erosion after removing the culvert, 3) increase the natural recreational area within this suburban zone.

The project was planned and prospected in 2015, the daylighting, flood protection and reconstruction of the riparian zone was conducted in 2016, and monitoring was conducted in 2017 and 2020.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Assessments of the ecological status based on nutrients, benthic algae, macroinvertebrates and fish were conducted twice, in 2017 and in 2020. The overall ecological status in 2017 and 2020 was bad due to lack of fish. This is due to a fish barrier (culvert) further down. However, macroinvertebrates increased from poor (2017) to good ecological status (2020), and benthic algae showed good status both years, thus these two organism groups had a good effect of the daylighting. Nutrients showed moderate status both years (Tot N and Tot P), which was the same as the upstream reference stretch.

Embankments were set in place to reduce the risk of bank erosion after daylighting, as this could lead to negative impacts on local buildings and infrastructure. 2 years of continuous monitoring of particle runoff in the daylighted stretch was compared to similar measurements at the upstream open section, and there were no differences in particle runoff from the two stretches.

To assess the recreational use of the area, the local bicycle club registered number of people using the new pathway and bench area every Saturday 10:00-14:00 from May-Oct 2017 and 2020. This showed an initial peak of users right after opening, then a slight decrease in 2017. However, the use was clearly higher in 2020, and the area was used by at least 9 people in the time registered every weekend in 2020.

Lessons learnt

Edit project overview to modify the lessons learnt.


Opening the stream has had very good reviews from the local residents and on the ecological status for benthic algae and macroinvertebrates. The bank erosion measures seem to work well after installment, but were built in a period of heavy rain, causing surplus erosion that could have been avoided. If fish status is to be improved, then the downstream culvert also needs to reopen. The costs of these measures were similar to building a new culvert, but yearly maintenance costs have so far been lower, and the recreational benefits are positive. The local bicycle club also have some ownership of the area now, through their monitoring, which has resulted in their free involvement in keeping the area free of garbage.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name Texasbekken
WFD water body codes 006-189-R
WFD (national) typology REL2321
WFD water body name Texasbekken oppstrøms Texasdalen
Pre-project morphology Closed culvert
Reference morphology Naturally straight
Desired post project morphology Naturally straight
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation Norway - Naturminne
Local/regional site designations World Hertiage Site
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology Artificially regulated
Dominant substrate Clay
River corridor land use Tall herb/rank vegetation
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) 150150 m <br />0.15 km <br />15,000 cm <br />
Project started 2015/02/02
Works started 2016/05/08
Works completed 2016/11/22
Project completed 2020/11/23
Total cost category 50 - 100 k€
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet), Lillestrøm Municpality

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