Case study:Restoration of Ilabekken brook: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
|Specific mitigation=, | |Specific mitigation=Loss of biodiversity, | ||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, | |||
|Biological quality elements=Fish, Invertebrates, | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures}} | {{Measures}} |
Revision as of 07:39, 3 December 2012
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | Norway |
Main contact forename | - |
Main contact surname | - |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Municipality of Trondheim and The Norwegian Public Roads Administration |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The Ilabekken brook is a small watercourse in the City of Trondheim. Since the early 20th century the area of the brook has urbanized. Because of the urbanization and loading from the sewage waters there has been loss of habitats and natural biodiversity in the brook. The sea trout (Salmo trutta L.) population had disappeared, in addition to other aquatic organisms and birds.
Local actions were taken during 2005-2008 to restore the area. Dedicated plan for the whole Ila valley was done integrating the needs of many different stakeholders. Large construction projects, especially the construction of a new ring road system around the town centre required relocation and upgrading of sewage and water works. The idea of opening the old water course of Ilabekken brook was assessed early in the planning process
The aim of the restoration was to improve the whole Ila valley area for recreation and well-being. The object was to reopen the Ilabekken brook and to stop the loading from sewage waters. Also habitat adaptations were made to recover the biodiversity in the brook for example creating more spawning and living places for sea trout and aquatic organisms by adding stones and gravel in the stream.
After the restoration the area of the Ilabekken brook has been a popular respite site in the city. The content of phosphorous and other pollutants have decreased in to the natural levels and populations of pollution sensitive species has recovered. Salmonid fish has rehabitated the brook and right after the restoration spawning and reproduction of trout has been also successful. The restoration of Ilabekken brook was a good example of good co-operation between different stakeholders. There were open and broad channels of communication with the local population and other actors throughout the planning process.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Name | Ilabekken Brook in the city of Trondheim |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | |
WFD (national) typology | |
WFD water body name | |
Pre-project morphology | |
Reference morphology | |
Desired post project morphology | |
Heavily modified water body | Yes |
National/international site designation | |
Local/regional site designations | |
Protected species present | Yes |
Invasive species present | No |
Species of interest | Trout, Salmon |
Dominant hydrology | |
Dominant substrate | |
River corridor land use | Urban |
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) | 70007,000 m <br />7 km <br />700,000 cm <br /> |
---|---|
Project started | 2005 |
Works started | |
Works completed | |
Project completed | 2008/09/01 |
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 | Loss of biodiversity |
---|---|
Hydromorphology | Continuity for organisms |
Biology | Fish, Invertebrates |
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