Case study:Hooge Raam: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 45: Line 45:
|Mean discharge category=0.1 - 1.0 m³/s
|Mean discharge category=0.1 - 1.0 m³/s
|Mn discharge=0.2
|Mn discharge=0.2
|Average channel gradient category=0.001 - 0.01
|Avrg channel gradient=0.0018
}}
}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}

Revision as of 12:27, 19 April 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: 51° 43' 22.58" N, 5° 42' 25.45" 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 Hydromorphology
Country Netherlands
Main contact forename Bram
Main contact surname Spierings
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Waterschap Aa en Maas
Contact organisation web site http://www.aaenmaas.nl
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Building with nature measures in streams

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.


The Hooge Raam is a tributary of the Lage Raam stream. It is a fast-flowing stream in a mostly natural area. After deepening and weir construction, the waterway had become too wide and too deep for its discharge. Fifteen years ago, maintenance was suspended. A new bed was dug out, in which the stream was allowed to meander. In parts of the stream, dead branches and trunks were introduced. In other parts, trees were planted along the banks to provide shade.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


The outlet of the stream has become richer in great manna grass and sludge. The stream remains within its planned meandering zone. The lower temperature proves suitable for species that prefer higher flow velocities, like fish and dragonflies.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Meuse
River basin Maas

Subcatchment

River name Oeffeltsche Raam
Area category 100 - 1000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology Siliceous
Ecoregion Western Plains
Dominant land cover Intensive agriculture (arable), Grassland, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural)
Waterbody ID NL38_8P, NL38_8I



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Beek Lage Raam, Beekherstel Lactariabeek, Lactariabeek, Oeffeltse Raam, Tovensche Beek


Site

Name Hooge Raam
WFD water body codes NL38_8F
WFD (national) typology R14
WFD water body name Halsche Beek en Hooge Raam
Pre-project morphology Actively meandering
Reference morphology Over deepened
Desired post project morphology Actively meandering
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate Sand
River corridor land use Intensive agriculture (arable)
Average bankfull channel width category 5 - 10 m
Average bankfull channel width (m) 77 m <br />0.007 km <br />700 cm <br />
Average bankfull channel depth category Less than 0.5 m
Average bankfull channel depth (m) 0.30.3 m <br />3.0e-4 km <br />30 cm <br />
Mean discharge category 0.1 - 1.0 m³/s
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) 0.20.2 m³/s <br />200 l/s <br />
Average channel gradient category 0.001 - 0.01
Average channel gradient 0.0018
Average unit stream power (W/m2) 0.504360.504 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



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information