Case study:Grote Aa

From RESTORE
Revision as of 14:45, 15 April 2021 by Bas Wullems (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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° 21' 51.66" N, 5° 34' 25.76" 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 Habitat and biodiversity, Monitoring, Water quality
Country Netherlands
Main contact forename Ineke
Main contact surname Barten
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Waterschap De Dommel
Contact organisation web site http://www.dommel.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 Grote Aa was part of an experiment on the effect of vegetation removal on flow velocity variation and the abundance of fish and macroinvertebrates. For this experiment, different stretches of the stream were given a different treatment: the vegetation was either only mowed in blocks on one bank or only mowed in the middle of the stream. Both experiments were performed for a one year period in one stretch and a two year period in another stretch, so it could be determined how the vegetation, fish and macroinvertebrates would respond over various periods of time.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Immediately after mowing, variation in flow velocity was observed and the fish population increased. However, the effect on water quality was very small. The water has remained eutrophic and the existing domination of floating vegetation was not broken. Instead, the species that were already abundantly present covered a larger area two years after mowing. The composition of the macroinvertebrate population differed between mowing regimes in the first year of the experiment, but showed a return to normal conditions in the second year.

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 Dommel
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2) 18001,800 km² <br />180,000 ha <br />
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m) 7777 m <br />0.077 km <br />7,700 cm <br />
Dominant geology Siliceous
Ecoregion Western Plains
Dominant land cover Grassland, Intensive agriculture (arable), Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Moorland/heathland, Urban
Waterbody ID NL_99_6_BO_BE_2



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Beekherstel Beekloop BmN, Beekherstel Keersop, Beekherstel Reusel Baarschot-Diessen, Boven-Dommel, Buulder Aa, Herinrichting beekdal Tongelreep, Kleine Aa, traject Smalwater Noord, Kleine Beerze


Site

Name Groote Aa
WFD water body codes NL27_KD_1_2
WFD (national) typology R5
WFD water body name Groote Aa/Buulder Aa
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 No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate Sand
River corridor land use Intensive agriculture (arable), Moorland/heathland, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Wetland
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category 0.1 - 1.0 m³/s
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)
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